Skip to main content

Full text of "The works of James Abram Garfield"

See other formats


Google 


This  is  a  digital  copy  of  a  book  that  was  preserved  for  generations  on  library  shelves  before  it  was  carefully  scanned  by  Google  as  part  of  a  project 

to  make  the  world's  books  discoverable  online. 

It  has  survived  long  enough  for  the  copyright  to  expire  and  the  book  to  enter  the  public  domain.  A  public  domain  book  is  one  that  was  never  subject 

to  copyright  or  whose  legal  copyright  term  has  expired.  Whether  a  book  is  in  the  public  domain  may  vary  country  to  country.  Public  domain  books 

are  our  gateways  to  the  past,  representing  a  wealth  of  history,  culture  and  knowledge  that's  often  difficult  to  discover. 

Marks,  notations  and  other  maiginalia  present  in  the  original  volume  will  appear  in  this  file  -  a  reminder  of  this  book's  long  journey  from  the 

publisher  to  a  library  and  finally  to  you. 

Usage  guidelines 

Google  is  proud  to  partner  with  libraries  to  digitize  public  domain  materials  and  make  them  widely  accessible.  Public  domain  books  belong  to  the 
public  and  we  are  merely  their  custodians.  Nevertheless,  this  work  is  expensive,  so  in  order  to  keep  providing  tliis  resource,  we  liave  taken  steps  to 
prevent  abuse  by  commercial  parties,  including  placing  technical  restrictions  on  automated  querying. 
We  also  ask  that  you: 

+  Make  non-commercial  use  of  the  files  We  designed  Google  Book  Search  for  use  by  individuals,  and  we  request  that  you  use  these  files  for 
personal,  non-commercial  purposes. 

+  Refrain  fivm  automated  querying  Do  not  send  automated  queries  of  any  sort  to  Google's  system:  If  you  are  conducting  research  on  machine 
translation,  optical  character  recognition  or  other  areas  where  access  to  a  large  amount  of  text  is  helpful,  please  contact  us.  We  encourage  the 
use  of  public  domain  materials  for  these  purposes  and  may  be  able  to  help. 

+  Maintain  attributionTht  GoogXt  "watermark"  you  see  on  each  file  is  essential  for  in  forming  people  about  this  project  and  helping  them  find 
additional  materials  through  Google  Book  Search.  Please  do  not  remove  it. 

+  Keep  it  legal  Whatever  your  use,  remember  that  you  are  responsible  for  ensuring  that  what  you  are  doing  is  legal.  Do  not  assume  that  just 
because  we  believe  a  book  is  in  the  public  domain  for  users  in  the  United  States,  that  the  work  is  also  in  the  public  domain  for  users  in  other 
countries.  Whether  a  book  is  still  in  copyright  varies  from  country  to  country,  and  we  can't  offer  guidance  on  whether  any  specific  use  of 
any  specific  book  is  allowed.  Please  do  not  assume  that  a  book's  appearance  in  Google  Book  Search  means  it  can  be  used  in  any  manner 
anywhere  in  the  world.  Copyright  infringement  liabili^  can  be  quite  severe. 

About  Google  Book  Search 

Google's  mission  is  to  organize  the  world's  information  and  to  make  it  universally  accessible  and  useful.   Google  Book  Search  helps  readers 
discover  the  world's  books  while  helping  authors  and  publishers  reach  new  audiences.  You  can  search  through  the  full  text  of  this  book  on  the  web 

at|http: //books  .google  .com/I 


\       y§     g    PROPERTY    OF    THE 


ARTES      SCIENTIA     VERITAS 


THE    WORKS 


OF 


JAMES   ABRAM    GARFIELD 


Vol.  I. 


( 


-^^^^:iyi^^ 


S.   **  ' 


THE    WORKS 


[James  Abram  Garfield 


EDITED  BV 


BURKE    A.    HINSDALE 


UNIVERSITY      LIBRARY 

DDCim  4!& 


CAirriON Please  handle  this  volume  with  care. 

The  paper  is  very  brittle. 


/l 


THE    WORKS 


OF 


^MES  Abram  Garfield 


EDITED  BY 

BURKE    A.    HINSDALE 

PRBSIDBMT  OF  HISAM  COLLBGB 


VOL.  I. 


'  . 


^•*i 


BOSTON 
JAMES    R.   OSGOOD    AND    COMPANY 

CLEVELAND:   COBB,  ANDREWS,  &   CO. 

1882 


Copyright,  1S8S, 
By  Lucretia  R.  Garfield. 


Ai/  rights  reserved. 


Univbrsity  Prbss: 
John  Wilson  and  Son,  Cambridge. 


{ntet:  folta  frttctuK. 


PREFACE. 


FOR  several  years  President  Garfield  had  looked 
forward  to  a  time  when  he  would  be  able  to  revise 
and  publish  such  of  his  speeches  and  writings  as  he 
deemed  worthy  of  a  place  in  American  literature.  It 
was  a  purpose  that  lay  near  his  heart.  What  he  would 
have  selected  for  publication,  and  how  far  he  would  have 
carried  revision,  can  now  be  only  matters  of  speculation. 
His  untimely  death,  which  defeated  so  many  other  plans 
and  dashed  so  many  other  hopes,  prevented  the  realiza- 
tion of  this  fond  anticipation,  and,  through  the  partiality 
of  Mrs.  Garfield,  devolved  the  editorship  of  his  works 
upon  me.  An  account  of  the  manner  in  which  I.  have 
discharged  the  trust  seems  called  for. 

The  works  were  to  be  limited  to  matter  that  had  been 
published  in  its  authors  lifetime.  All  letters,  manu- 
scripts, etc.  were  reserved  for  future  use.  As  to  the  han- 
dling  of  this  material,  it  should  be  said,  first  of  all,  that  no 
editor  could  have  the  same  rights  and  powers  over  it  that 
belonged  to  him  who  produced  it.  Equally  obvious  are 
the  principles  that  should  govern  the  selection  of  mate- 
rial to  be  used.  Everything  of  real  value  that  deals  with 
questions  of  permanent  interest,  everything  that  is  a 
material  part  of  the  history  of  the  times,  and  everj^thing 


viii  PREFACE. 

that  has  a  considerable  personal  interest  flowing  from 
its  author,  as  illustrating  the  man,  should  obviously  be 
included  in  the  authorized  edition  of  his  Works.  It 
has  seemed  best  not  to  draw  upon  such  material  as 
exists  produced  before  1863,  but  to  leave  that  to  the 
biographer,  and  to  begin  these  Works  with  Mr.  Gar- 
field s  entry  into  Congress.  Accordingly  these  two  vol- 
umes are  made  up  wholly  of  matter  which,  in  some 
form,  has  already  been  given  to  the  public.  They  do 
not  by  any  means  contain  everything  that  President 
Garfield  said  and  wrote  which  has  been  published ;  but 
they  give  a  full  measure  both  of  the  quantity  and  qual- 
ity of  his  published  thought.  All  of  his  utterances  had 
life  in  them ;  but  it  is  believed  that  everything,  or  nearly 
everything,  is  here  presented,  the  value  and  interest  of 
which  entitle  it  to  admission  to  the  popular  edition  of 
his  works.  If  anything  has  been  omitted  that  should 
have  been  included,  it  is  owing  either  to  the  editors 
having  overlooked  it,  or  to  a  false  judgment  of  its  value. 

The  larger  number  of  these  speeches,  addresses,  and 
papers,  making  due  allowance  for  needed  verbal  correc- 
tions,, appear  as  they  came  from  their  authors  hand. 
From  some  of  them  portions  have  been  omitted,  since 
they  would  but  load  down  the  work.  These  portions 
may  be  divided  into  two  classes ;  namely,  passages  that 
were  of  merely  local  or  temporary  interest,  and  passages 
that  contain  what  has  been  as  well  or  better  said  in 
some  other  place.  Perhaps  some  critics  will  say  that 
the  rule  of  exclusion,  under  both  these  heads,  might  have 
been  carried  further  with  advantage.  The  following  re- 
marks will,  therefore,  be  pertinent. 

First  More  or  less  matter  has  been  retained  that  is 
not  now  and  will  never  again  be  of  immediate  practical 


PREFACE.  IX 

utility.  If  this  is  not  true  of  whole  compositions,  it  cer- 
tainly is  of  parts  of  compositions.  Some  of  the  statis- 
tical tables,  and  the  analyses  of  national  expenditures 
found  in  the  speeches  on  Appropriations,  may  be  in- 
stanced. But  this  matter  should  obviously  be  retained  ; 
first,  because  it  is  a  part  of  the  history  of  the  times ;  and 
secondly,  because  it  is  part  of  the  history  of  President 
Garfield's  mind  and  work,  and  will  well  illustrate  his 
mental  habit  and  method  of  discussion. 

Second.  It  has  been  found  impossible  wholly  to  pre- 
vent repetition  and  overlapping.  Mr.  Garfield  was  emi- 
nently  a  didactic  statesman.  He  was  a  teacher  both  of 
the  National  Legislature  and  of  the  public.  He  discussed 
the  same  subject  in  many  different  places  and  at  many 
different  times.  He  often  discussed  the  same  subject  — 
as  Resumption  of  Specie  Payments,  and  the  Tariff — 
in  the  House  of  Representatives,  and  before  popular 
assemblies.  Naturally,  therefore,  perhaps  it  may  be 
said  necessarily,  his  speeches  and  writings  contain  fre- 
quent repetitions,  not  only  of  facts  and  arguments,  but 
also  of  diction  and  illustration.  The  widest  as  well 
as  the  most  frequent  overlapping  is  found  in  his  Con- 
gressional speeches  and  popular  addresses  on  political 
subjects  which  were  delivered  at  about  the  same  time. 
In  these  volumes,  notwithstanding  a  constant  effort  to 
reduce  repetition  to  a  minimum,  repetitions  will  still  be 
found.  Touching  these  it  may  be  said  that  they  could 
not  be  omitted  without  impairing  the  integrity  of  the 
composition,  or  weakening  the  force  of  the  related  parts 
of  the  speech  or  paper.  The  reader  will  not  however, 
weary  of  these  passages.  He  will  find  the  same  subject 
coming  up  for  discussion  again  and  again ;  but  he  will 
find   that,   even   upon    those  subjects  which   President 


X  PREFACE. 

Garfield  discussed  most  frequently  and  fully,  the  mat- 
ter is  almost  always  new  and  the  diction  fresh.  And 
even  when  he  finds  facts,  arguments,  or  quotations  that 
he  has  met  before,  he  will  find  them  in  new  combina- 
tions  and  answering  new  purposes. 

Some  readers  may  perhaps  say  that  the  historical 
illustration  of  the  text,  at  least  in  some  cases,  is  exces- 
sive. Such  readers  should  remember,  first,  that  the 
works  of  our  older  statesmen  have  often  suffered  from 
lack  of  such  illustration  ;  secondly,  that  the  subjects 
with  which  President  Garfield  dealt,  particularly  in  the 
early  part  of  his  public  life,  are  rapidly  receding ;  and, 
thirdly,  that  no  adequate  life  of  him  has  yet  appeared, 
or  is  likely  to  appear  for  some  time  to  come.  Con- 
cerning the  second  of  these  points,  —  the  rapidity  with 
which  events  in  our  age  pass  into  history,  —  a  few  wordis 
may  well  be  spoken.  As  long  ago  as  Februarj',  1876, 
he  himself  touched  one  phase  of  this  subject.  "  More 
than  a  million  votes,"  said  he,  "  will  be  cast  at  the  next 
Presidential  election  by  men  who  were  schoolboys  in 
their  primers  when  the  great  financial  measures  of  1862 
were  adopted  ;  and  they  do  not  realize  how  fast  or  how 
far  the  public  mind  has  drifted.  The  logbook  of  this 
extraordinary  voyage  cannot  be  read  too  often."  In 
fact,  it  is  not  extravagant  to  say  that  there  are  hun- 
dreds of  thousands  of  young  Americans  to-day  who 
know  no  more  of  the  events  of  1862  than  they  do  of 
the  events  of  1776,  if  indeed  they  know  so  much.  If 
the  historical  commentary  is  too  full  for  some  readers, 
it  is  not  for  others ;  and  for  none  will  it  be  too  full  in 
the  next  generation. 

Much  labor  has  been  bestowed  upon  the  quotations, 
both  to  verify  them,  and  to  give  the  appropriate  refer- 


PREFACE.  XI 

ences.  Occasionally  the  matter  quoted  was  ephemeral, 
and  search  for  the  original  was  profitless ;  but  in  all  other 
cases  no  reasonable  effort  has  been  spared  to  track 
the  quotation  to  its  source.  When  it  is  considered  that 
the  author's  literary  habits  were  rather  those  of  a  public 
man  than  of  a  man  of  letters,  and  when  it  is  remem- 
bered that  his  speeches  were  often  prepared  and  deliv- 
ered under  great  stress  both  of  time  and  labor,  it  will 
not  appear  strange  that  in  many  cases  he  has  left  no 
references  to  the  originals  he  has  quoted,  and  that  they 
cannot  readily  be  found. 

The  question  of  arrangement  has  been  carefully  con- 
sidered. This  question  was.  Shall  the  topical  or  the 
chronological  method  be  followed.'^  Each  course  had 
great  and  obvious  advantages.  Finally,  however,  the 
chronological  order,  with  departures  few  and  slight,  was 
adopted,  as  doing  best  justice  both  to  the  history  of 
the  author's  mind  and  to  the  history  of  the  country. 
Those  who  wish  to  study  his  utterances  upon  special 
subjects  in  group  can,  with  the  aid  of  the  Contents  and 
the  Index,  readily  group  them  for  themselves. 

The  pamphlet  editions  of  speeches  and  addresses 
have  been  followed  in  all  cases,  where  such  editions 
exist,  to  the  exclusion  of  the  reports  found  in  news- 
papers, and  in  the  Congressional  Globe  and  Record. 

The  thanks  of  both  Mrs.  Garfield  and  the  editor  are 
tendered  to  Messrs.  Houghton,  Mifflin,  &  Co.,  publishers 
of  the  Atlantic  Monthly,  to  Mr.  A.  T.  Rice,  publisher 
of  the  North  American  Review,  and  to  A.  J.  Johnson 
&  Co.,  publishers  of  Johnson  s  New  Universal  Cyclo- 
paedia, for  their  permission,  so  courteously  granted,  to 
include  in  these  works  the  articles  credited  to  their 
respective  publications. 


xii  PREFACE. 

It  has  been  stated,  or  at  least  implied,  above,  that 
everything  heretofore  published  that  has  real  value  has 
been  included  in  these  Works.  One  exception  should  be 
made.  There  is  a  series  of  Minor  Speeches,  eminently 
characteristic  of  their  author,  most  of  them  delivered 
between  his  nomination  by  the  Chicago  Convention  and 
his  inauguration  as  President,  which  are  well  worthy  of 
collection  and  publication,  but  which  can  hardly  be  ad- 
mitted, with  propriety,  to  his  Works.  These  have  been 
carefully  prepared  for  publication  by  Col.  A.  F.  Rock- 
well, of  the  United  States  army,  and  they  will  shortly 
appear  in  a  worthy  form,  from  the  press  of  the  Century 
Company. 

The  preceding  explanation  made,  I  now  ask  leave  to 
transcribe  some  words  of  characterization  spoken  by  the 
Hon.  James  G.  Blaine  before  the  House  of  Representa- 
tives and  the  Senate,  in  the  hall  of  the  House,  Febru- 
ary 27,  1882,  and  then  to  add  some  remarks  of  my  own. 

**  As  a  parliamentary  orator,  as  a  debater  on  an  issue  squarely 
joined,  where  the  position  had  been  chosen  and  the  ground  laid 
out,  Garfield  must  be  assigned  a  very  high  rank.  More,  per- 
haps, than  any  man  with  whom  he  was  associated  in  public  life, 
he  gave  careful  and  systematic  study  to  public  questions,  and 
he  came  to  every  discussion  in  which  he  took  part  with  elabo- 
rate and  complete  preparation.  He  was  a  steady  and  indefati- 
gable worker.  Those  who  imagine  that  talent  or  genius  can 
supply  the  place  or  achieve  the  results  of  labor  will  find  no  en- 
couragement in  Garfield's  life.  In  preliminary  work  he  was  apt, 
rapid,  and  skilful.  He  possessed  in  a  high  degree  the  power 
of  readily  absorbing  ideas  and  facts,  and,  like  Dr.  Johnson,  had 
the  art  of  getting  from  a  book  all  that  was  of  value  in  it  by  a 
reading  apparently  so  quick  and  cursory  that  it  seemed  like  a 
mere  glance  at  the  table  of  contents.  He  was  a  pre-eminently 
fair  and  candid  man  in  debate,  took  no  petty  advantage,  stooped 
to  no  unworthy  methods,  avoided  personal  allusions,  rarely  ap- 
pealed to  prejudice,  did  not  seek  to  inflame  passion.     He  had 


PREFACE.  xiii 

a  quicker  eye  for  the  strong  point  of  his  adversary  than  for  his 
weak  point,  and  on  his  own  side  he  so  marshalled  his  weighty 
arguments  as  to  make  his  hearers  forget  any  possible  lack  in 
the  complete  strength  of  his  position.  He  had  a  habit  of  stating 
his  opponent's  side  with  such  amplitude  of  fairness  and  such 
liberality  of  concession,  that  his  followers  often  complained  that 
he  was  giving  his  case  away.  But  never  in  his  prolonged  par- 
ticipation in  the  proceedings  of  the  House  did  he  give  his  case 
away,  or  fail,  in  the  judgment  of  competent  and  impartial  listen- 
ers, to  gain  the  mastery 

"  Those  unfamiliar  with  Garfield's  industry,  and  ignorant  of 
the  details  of  his  work,  may,  in  some  degree,  measure  them  by 
the  annals  of  Congress.  No  one  of  the  generation  of  public 
men  to  which  he  belonged  has  contributed  so  much  that  will 
be  valuable  for  future  reference.  His  speeches  are  numerous, 
many  of  them  brilliant,  all  of  them  well  studied,  carefully 
phrased,  and  exhaustive  of  the  subject  under  consideration. 
Collected  from  the  scattered  pages  of  ninety  royal  octavo  vol- 
umes of  Congressional  Records,  they  would  present  an  invalu- 
able compendium  of  the  political  history  of  the  most  important 
era  through  which  the  national  government  has  ever  passed. 
When  the  history  of  this  period  shall  be  impartially  written, 
when  war  legislation,  measures  of  reconstruction,  protection  of 
human  rights,  amendments  to  the  Constitution,  maintenance  of 
public  credit,  steps  towards  specie  resumption,  true  theories 
of  revenue,  may  be  reviewed,  unsurrounded  by  prejudice  and 
disconnected  from  partisanism,  the  speeches  of  Garfield  will  be 
estimated  at  their  true  value,  and  will  be  found  to  comprise 
a  vast  magazine  of  fact  and  argument,  of  clear  analysis  and 
sound  conclusion.  Indeed,  if  no  other  authority  were  accessi- 
ble, his  speeches  in  the  House  of  Representatives  from  Decem- 
ber, 1863,  to  June,  1880,  would  give  a  well-connected  history 
and  complete  defence  of  the  important  legislation  of  the  sev- 
enteen eventful  years  that  constitute  his  parliamentary  life. 
Far  beyond  that,  his  speeches  would  be  found  to  forecast  many 
great  measures  yet  to  be  completed,  —  measures  which  he 
knew  were  beyond  the  public  opinion  of  the  hour,  but  which 
he  confidently  believed  would  secure  popular  approval  within 
the  period  of  his  own  lifetime,  and  by  the  aid  of  his  own 
efforts."  1 

*  Eulogy  on  James  Abram  Garfield,  (Boston,  James  R.  Osgood  &  Co.,)  pp. 
28-30,  and  35-37. 


xiv  PREFACE. 

President  Garfield's  national  political  life  began  with 
his  entry  into  the  House  of  Representatives,  Decern- 
ber  7,  1863,  when  he  was  thirty-two  years  old.  It  will 
heighten  one's  appreciation  of  these  volumes,  and  give 
weight  to  the  words  of  Mr.  Blaine  just  quoted,  to  take  a 
view  of  his  mental  equipment  for  a  legislator,  and  of 
some  of  the  larger  conditions  under  which  these  Works 
were  produced. 

He  graduated  at  the  age  of  twenty-five,  with  so  much  . 
of  general  training  and  culture,  and  more  of  general 
reading,  than  was  implied  by  a  first  honor  in  a  Massa- 
chusetts college  in  1856.  He  continued  a  constant  and 
general  reader  to  the  end  of  his  life.  From  1856  to 
1 86 1  he  was  a  laborious  teacher  in  an  academical  school. 
His  experience  there  —  not  now  referring  to  the  admin- 
istrative but  to  the  strictly  didactic  function  —  was  of 
great  value  to  him  in  his  public  life.  His  admirable 
power  of  rhetorical  exposition,  both  as  a  forensic  and  as 
a  popular  orator,  in  so  far  as  it  was  the  result  of  art,  is 
largely  traceable  to  his  teacher  experience.  During  the 
same  years  he  was  in  constant  practice  as  a  public 
speaker  on  a  great  variety  of  subjects,  —  education,  sci- 
ence, literature,  politics,  and  religion,  —  and  this  practice 
was  of  equal  service.  He  read  law  with  a  fellow-teacher 
at  Hiram,  and  was  admitted  to  the  Ohio  bar  in  1861. 
In  i860  and  1861  he  served  a  term  in  the  Ohio  Senate, 
and,  although  the  youngest,  he  was  one  of  the  most 
active  and  influential  members  on  the  floor.  One  or 
two  short  speeches  made  in  the  Senate,  which  have  been 
preserved,  and  a  larger  number  of  committee  reports 
written  by  him,  show  that  the  Ohio  Senator  needed  but 
growth  and  maturity  to  become  the  national  Represent- 
ative.   In  the  college  literary  society  he  had  given  much 


PREFACE.  XV 

attention  to  parliamentary  law ;  he  improved  the  oppor- 
tunity that  the  Senate  gave  to  add  to  his  knowledge, 
both  theoretical  and  practical ;  so  that  he  entered  the 
House  of  Representatives  a  good  general  parliamen- 
tarian. 

Edward  Gibbon,  while  bemoaning  his  service  in  the 
Hampshire  militia,  said  it  was  of  much  service  to  him 
in  composing  his  History  of  the  Decline  and  Fall  of  the 
Roman  Empire.^  Much  more  was  President  Garfield's 
service  as  a  soldier  of  value  to  him  as  a  legislator  and 
statesman.  It  made  him  thoroughly  acquainted  with 
the  organization  and  needs  of  the  army,  and  with  the 
whole  military  side  of  the  Rebellion.  It  caused  him  to 
reflect  the  more  deeply  upon  its  political  side,  and  to 
revolve  more  carefully  in  his  mind  the  whole  question  of 
reconstruction.  More  than  this,  his  military  service 
added  very  greatly  to  his  knowledge  of  men  and  of  pub- 
lic business,  and  thereby  much  increased  his  mental  and 
moral  equipment  for  his  civil  career.  Collateral  ques- 
tions growing  out  of  the  war  also  engaged  his  attention 
somewhat :  thus,  in  his  paper  entitled  "  The  Currency 
Conflict,"  he  speaks  of  studying  finance  with  Secretary 
Chase  in  the  autumn  of  1862  (while  he  was  in  Washing- 
ton awaiting  orders,  and  serving  on  a  court-martial). 

The  only  specific  political  question  of  the  first  magni- 
tude  that  he  had  mastered  before  the  war  mutterines 
were  heard,  had  become  obsolete  when  he  entered 
Congress.  "  Slavery  in  the  Territories  "  was  the  great 
question  that  the   Republican   party  pressed  upon   the 

1  "  The  discipline  and  evolutions  of  a  modern  battalion  gave  me  a  clearer  notion 
of  the  phalanx  and  the  legion  ;  and  the  captain  of  the  Hampshire  Grenadiers  (the 
reader  may  smile)  has  not  been  useless  to  the  historian  of  the  Roman  Empire/'  — 
Memoirs^  etc. 


xvi  PREFACE. 

intellect  and  the  conscience  of  the  nation,  from  its  organ- 
ization in  1854  to  its  triumph  in  the  Presidential  election, 
of  i860.  "What  is  the  constitutional  authority  of  Con- 
gress over  the  domestic  institutions  of  a  Territory?"  was 
a  question  to  be  answered  partly  in  view  of  the  nature 
and  scope  of  the  national  Constitution,  and  partly  in  view 
of  the  legislative  precedents  from  1787  onwards.  This 
was  an  interesting  and  vivifying  line  of  study  and  dis- 
cussion. Parallel  with  it  ran  the  slavery  question  as  a 
whole ;  for,  although  the  Republican  party  denied  to 
themselves  any  right  or  purpose  to  interfere  with  slavery 
in  the  States,  Republican  orators  and  writers  did  not  con- 
fine themselves,  in  discussion,  to  "  Slavery  in  the  Territo- 
ries,*' but  dwelt  also  upon  the  economical,  political,  and 
moral  features  of  slavery  itself.  Before  the  year  i860, 
although  following  other  pursuits  than  politics,  Mr.  Gar- 
field had  possessed  himself  of  all  the  points  in  that  line 
of  discussion, — the  Ordinance  of  1787,  the  Missouri  Com- 
promise of  1820,  the  Wilmot  Proviso  of  1846,  the  Kansas- 
Nebraska  Act  of  1854,  the  Dred  Scott  Decision  of  1857, 
"  Squatter  Sovereignty,"  together  with  the  points  of  infe- 
rior interest.  He  was  a  full  master  of  the  Republican 
argument,  and  had  stated  it  many  times  over  with  much 
power  and  eloquence.  The  Republican  party  applied 
its  cherished  principle  to  the  Territories  in  the  act  of 
June  19,  1862,  and  then  only  slavery  in  the  States  re- 
mained to  be  dealt  with. 

Republican  opposition  to  slavery  before  i860,  as  an- 
nounced in  platforms,  was  an  assertion  of  the  right  and 
duty  of  Congress  to  prohibit  its  spread.  This  assertion 
the  Democratic  party  opposed,  at  first  on  old-fashioned 
State  Rights  grounds ;  but  afterwards  the  party  divided 
into  those  who  asserted  that  the  Constitution  of  its  own 


PREFACE.  xvii 

force  carried  slavery  into  the  Territories,  that  Congress 
had  nothing  to  do  with  it,  and  that  the  people  .of  the 
Territory  even  could  not  prohibit  it  until  they  came  to 
form  a  State  government,  and  those  who  asserted  that 
the  whole  question  was  left  to  the  people  of  the  Terri- 
tory, and  that  they  could  prohibit  it  either  by  a  law  of 
their  local  legislature  or  in  the  constitution  of  their 
State  government  (which  was  the  "  Squatter  Sovereign- 
ty "  doctrine  of  Mr.  Douglas).  The  contest  was,  there- 
fore, a  revival,  in  a  new  form,  of  the  old  contest  of  na- 
tional and  local  powers.  Many  Republicans  of  that  day 
had  been  brought  up  in  the  Democratic  party,  but  the 
original  and  the  only  original  Republican  doctrine  readily 
assimilated  with  what  are  called  "  national  views  "  of  the 
Federal  government.  As  a  matter  of  course  the  war 
gave  the  party  a  strong  impulse  in  the  same  direction. 
How  different  the  spirit  and  the  course  of  the  party 
would  have  been  had  there  been  no  war,  is  a  curious 
subject  of  speculation.  Here  it  suffices  to  say  that  Mr. 
Garfield's  political  training  up  to  1861,  as  well  as  the 
native  cast  of  his  mind,  gave  him  a  predisposition  in 
favor  of  Nationalism,  and  this  predisposition  the  Rebel- 
lion greatly  strengthened. 

The  Southern  threat  of  Secession,  which  so  long  hung 
over  the  country,  was  not  seriously  regarded  by  Repub- 
licans until  the  winter  of  1860-61.  They  did  not  believe 
there  was  going  to  be  a  war  until  war  began;  and  then 
their  most  philosophical  statesman,  Mr.  Seward,  said  it 
would  be  over  in  ninety  days.  But  just  so  soon  as  the 
Southern  demonstrations  following  the  election  of  Pres- 
ident Lincoln  began  to  impress  the  North,  —  and  still 
more  as  time  wore  on  and  words  gave  way  to  blows,  — 
the  whole  Northern  people,  and  especially  Republicans, 

VOL.  I.  b 


xviii  PREFACE. 

fell  to  studying  the  origin,  history,  and  nature  of  our 
national  institutions,  just  as  the  American  Colonists 
on  the  verge  of  the  Revolution,  according  to  Edmund 
Burke,  fell  to  reading  Blackstone's  Commentaries  and 
other  books  of  law.^  "  How  did  the  Union  originate?" 
"  What  is  the  history  of  the  Constitution  ?  "  "  What  is 
the  nature  of  the  Federal  bond  ?  "  at  once  became  com- 
mon questions  of  absorbing  interest.  It  was  not  suffi- 
cient to  oppose  physical  resistance  to  Secession  ;  it  must 
be  shown  that  Secession  had  no  support  in  either  con- 
stitutional or  natural  law.  Now  all  patriotic  men  began 
to  cast  about  for  the  real  elements  of  strength  in  the 
National  Constitution,  and  for  the  lessons  for  the  hour 
which  real  statesmen  had  taught.  Mr.  Garfield  shared 
in  this  impulse  to  the  full,  and  was  at  once  led  into 
the  middle  of  a  field  of  political  reading  and  thought 
which  before  he  had  barely  touched. 

For  more  than  a  half-century  the  country  had  been 
moving  steadily  in  one  direction.  Lord  Macaulay  wrote 
to  an  American  in  1857,  "There  can,  I  apprehend,  be  no 
doubt  that  your  institutions  have,  during  the  whole  of 
the  nineteenth  century,  been  constantly  becoming  more 
Jeffersonian  and  less  Washingtonian."^  "It  is  surely 
strange,"  he  added,  "that,  while  this  process  has  been 
going  on,  Washington  should  have  been  exalted  into  a 
god,  and  Jefferson  degraded  into  a  demon."  The  Eng- 
lish  lord  seems  to  have  understood  that  Jefferson  was 

^  "  I  have  been  told  by  an  eminent  bookseller,  that  in  no  branch  of  his  business, 
after  tracts  of  popular  devotion,  were  so  many  books  as  those  on  the  law  exported 
to  the  Plantations.  The  Colonists  have  now  fallen  into  the  way  of  printing  them 
for  their  own  use.  I  hear  that  they  have  sold  nearly  as  many  of  Blackstone's  Com- 
mentaries in  America  as  in  England."  —  Speech  on  Conciliation  with  America, 
March  22,  1775. 

^  Letter  to  H.  S.  Randall,  Esq.,  dated  Holly  Lodge,  Kensington,  January  18, 
1857.  See  Appendix  to  Harper's  edition  of  Trevelyan's  "  Life  and  Letters  of  Lord 
Macaulay.** 


PREFACE.  xix 

the  foil  to  Washington.  Indeed,  he  says  his  Ameri- 
can  correspondent  intimated  as  much  to  him.  But  an 
intelligent  American  need  not  be  told  that  Jefferson 
was  rather  the  foil  to  Alexander  Hamilton.  Jefferson 
believed  in  democracy  and  in  a  confederation;  Hamil- 
ton favored  class  influence  and  representation,  but  be- 
yond any  man  of  his  time  grasped  and  set  forth  the 
idea  of  Nationalism.  It  was  in  the  very  beginning  of 
the  war  that  the  people  of  the  North,  as  never  before, 
came  to  appreciate  the  fact  stated  by  Guizot :  "  Ham- 
ilton must  be  classed  among  the  men  who  have  best 
known  the  vital  principles  and  fundamental  conditions  of 

a  government There  is  not  in  the  Constitution 

of  the  United  States  an  element  of  order,  of  force,  of 
duration,  which  he  has  not  powerfully  contributed  to 
introduce  into  it,  and  to  cause  to  predominate."  In  the 
year  1880,  Mr.  Garfield  thus  spoke  of  Hamilton  :  — 

"  I  cannot  look  upon  this  great  assemblage,  and  these  old 
veterans  that  have  marched  past  us,  and  listen  to  the  words 
of  welcome  from  our  comrade  who  has  just  spoken,  without 
remembering  how  great  a  thing  it  is  to  live  in  this  Union  and 
be  a  part  of  it.  This  is  New  York ;  and  yonder  toward  the 
Battery,  more  than  a  hundred  years  ago,  a  young  student  of 
Columbia  College  was  arguing  the  ideas  of  the  American  Revo- 
lution and  American  Union  against  the  un-American  loyalty  to 
monarchy  of  his  college  president  and  professors.  By  and  by 
he  went  into  the  patriot  army,  was  placed  on  the  staff  of  Wash- 
ington, to  fight  the  battles  of  his  country,  and  while  in  camp, 
before  he  was  twenty-one  years  old,  upon  a  drum-head  he  wrote 
a  letter  which  contained  every  germ  of  the  Constitution  of  the 
United  States.  That  student,  soldier,  statesman,  and  great 
leader  of  thought,  Alexander  Hamilton,  of  New  York,  made 
this  Republic  glorious  by  his  thinking,  and  left  his  lasting  im- 
press upon  this  the  foremost  State  of  the  Union.  And  here  on 
this  island,  the  scene  of  his  early  triumphs,  we  gather  to-night, 
soldiers  of  the  new  war,  representing  the  same  ideas  of  union, 


XX  PREFACE. 

having  added  strength  and  glory  to  the  monument  reared  by 
the  heroes  of  the  Revolution."  * 

Mr.  Henry  Cabot  Lodge  says  the  ideas  which  JefiFerson 
and  Hamilton  embodied  have,  in  their  conflicts,  made 
up  the  history  of  the  United  States.  The  democratic 
principles  of  the  one  and  the  national  principles  of  the 
other  have  prevailed,  and  have  sway  to-day  throughout 
the  length  and  breadth  of  the  land.  "  But  if  we  go  a 
step  further,"  he  says,  "  we  find  that  the  great  Federalist 
has  the  advantage.  The  democratic  system  of  Jefferson 
is  administered  in  the  form  and  on  the  principles  of 
Hamilton."  ^  This  is  propounded  as  the  point  towards 
which  American  political  thought  tends,  —  Democracy 
and  Nationalism.  The  expression  well  describes  Mr. 
Garfield's  own  h^bit  of  political  thought.  He  had  no 
sympathy  with  Hamilton's  aristocratical  principles;  he 
was  as  pure  a  democrat  as  JefiFerson  himself;  but  he 
wanted  the  democratic  system  administered  in  the  form 
and  on  the  principles  of  Nationalism.  The  thoughts  of 
Hamilton  had  great  influence  upon  his  mind  and  work. 
His  eye  never  wandered  from  the  pole-star  of  nationality. 
He  loved  Ohio,  but  he  loved  the  Union  more.  As  he 
put  it,  he  rendered  allegiance  to  Washington,  not  by  the 
way  of  Columbus,  but  in  an  air  line.  His  country,  its 
union,  its  greatness,  its  purity,  its  honor,  its  flag,  was 
with  him  an  absorbing  passion,  —  as  much  so  as  with 
Hamilton  himself.  Hence  it  is  pertinent  to  add  that  he 
had  a  sort  of  literary  acquaintance  with  this  great  states- 
man before  the  war  began ;  but  his  real  recognition  of 
his  greatness,  and  of  the  strength  of  his  political  doc- 
trines, dated  from  certain  studies  in  the  first  half  of  the 

*  Speech  to  the  "  Boys  in  Blue/'  delivered  in  New  York,  August  6, 1880. 
>  Alexander  Hamilton,  p.  283  (Boston,  1882). 


PREFACE.  xxi 

year  1861.  Accordingly,  he  entered  Congress,  and  be- 
fore that  the  army,  not  simply  an  ardent  patriot,  but  a 
student  of  history  and  politics,  rooted  and  grounded  in 
those  elements  of  order,  of  force,  and  of  duration  which, 
according  to  the  distinguished  Guizot,  Hamilton  con- 
tributed so  powerfully  to  introduce  into  the  Constitution, 
and  to  cause  to  predominate. 

From  the  foregoing  summary  it  is  easy  to  see  what 
was  Mr.  Garfield's  mental  equipment  for  a  legislator. 
The  first  and  most  valuable  part  of  it  was  general,  — 
his  native  ability,  his  general  education,  his  mental 
habits,  the  training  that  he  had  received  in  educa- 
tion, war,  and  politics,  and  his  general  views  of  our 
American  governments.  National  and  State,  though 
these  views,  as  a  matter  of  course,  he  had  not  carried 
out  and  applied  to  many  specific  questions.  More  nar- 
rowly, he  had  mastered  the  Slavery  question,  upon 
which,  beyond  supporting  the  Thirteenth  Amendment, 
he  was  never  called  to  legislate ;  he  had  a  full  grasp  of 
both  the  military  and  political  sides  of  the  Rebellion, 
and  had  partially  thought  out  some  of  the  other  ques- 
tions that  were  so  closely  connected  with  the  war.  This 
is  about  all.  At  this  day  there  is  nothing  risked  in  say- 
ing that  the  late  President  s  most  valuable  public  service 
was  in  the  field  of  economical  discussion  and  legislation : 
Currency,  the  Banks,  Taxation,  Appropriations,  Resump- 
tion, and  related  topics.  The  greatness  and  value  of  this 
service  is  now  largely  recognized  by  the  public;  but  it 
will  be  surprising  if  the  publication  of  these  Works 
does  not  greatly  strengthen  that  recognition.  Nor  is 
there  anything  risked  in  saying  that,  when  he  entered 
Congress,  he  had  given  no  systematic  study  to  any  of 
these  subjects.      His  grasp  of  economical  science  was 


xxii  PREFACE. 

then  little  more  than  it  was  when  he  left  college,  al- 
though his  general  reading  had  given  him  a  wider  range 
of  knowledge.  The  great  knowledge  of  these  subjects, 
the  sound  conclusions,  the  just  principles,  of  which  these 
volumes  are  such  striking  evidences,  were  gathered  and 
wrought  out  after  his  Congressional  life  began.  The 
same  may  be  said  of  nearly  all  the  subjects  that  are  here 
discussed.  That  he  not  only  was  able  to  master  these 
great  and  difficult  financial  questions,  but  was  always 
able  to  defend  sound  principles  with  new  arguments, 
fresh  information,  and  original  illustrations,  at  the  same 
time  that  he  was  dealing  with  the  other  questions,  both 
many  and  difficult,  of  those  eventful  years,  as  well  as 
maintaining  a  lively  interest  in  all  public  questions  and 
bearing  a  part  in  the  discussion  of  many  of  them,  is 
at  once  a  striking  proof  of  the  greatness  of  his  powers, 
of  the  thoroughness  of  his  training,  and  of  the  zeal  and 
conscientiousness  with  which  he  devoted  himself  to  his 
legislative  duties. 

With  the  mental  equipment  now  described,  Mr.  Gar- 
field entered  the  national  House  of  Representatives. 
He  at  once  took  an  active  part  in  the  debates,  as  the 
Index  of  the  Congressional  Globe  for  the  first  session  of 
the  Thirty-eighth  Congress  shows.  The  four  speeches 
whose  titles  are  found  at  the  head  of  the  Contents  of 
this  first  volume  were  made  that  session.  This  activity 
was  kept  up,  with  some  fluctuation  of  course,  through 
the  twenty-two  sessions  that  he  sat  in  Congress.  It  will 
be  observed  that,  with  a  few  exceptions,  they  are  his 
major  Congressional  speeches  that  are  presented  in 
these  Works.  Only  a  few  of  the  far  greater  number 
of  minor  speeches  have  been  drawn  out  of  the  Globe  and 
Record ;  and  these  have  been  given  because  they  deal 


PREFACE.  xxiii 

with  important  subjects,  and  because  they  show  the 
speaker's  powers  in  such  efforts.  Of  their  kind,  these 
minor  speeches  are  as  perfect  as  the  greater  and  better- 
known  speeches  upon  which  his  reputation  as  a  debater 
rests.  Nor  must  it  be  supposed  that  in  Congress  he  was 
simply  a  speech-maker;  he  was  always  a  conscientious 
and  laborious  committeeman.  Then  the  reader  must 
remember  that  every  year,  from  1864  to  1879,  with  the 
single  exception  of  1867  when  he  was  in  Europe,  he 
took  an  active  part  in  each  political  canvass ;  his  ser- 
vices were  in  wide  request  in  Ohio  and  in  other  States, 
and  he  sometimes  made  as  many  as  sixty  or  seventy 
addresses  in  a  single  campaign.  For  a  number  of  years 
he  began  his  annual  canvass  with  a  carefully  prepared 
speech,  which  was  commonly  printed  from  his  own  man- 
uscript. This  was  of  the  nature  of  a  report  to  his  con- 
stituents, or  to  the  people  of  Ohio,  of  the  political  history 
of  the  year,  and  especially  of  legislation.  The  campaign 
addresses  from  1866  to  1872  inclusive  constitute  this 
series.  By  the  side  of  these  lines  of  activity  must  be 
mentioned  his  not  inconsiderable  law  practice.  In  all, 
his  cases  in  the  United  States  courts  were  some  thirty  in 
number,  many  of  them  involving  new  and  difficult  ques- 
tions, which  demanded  much  time  and  study  for  their 
mastery.  The  three  legal  arguments  that  were  fully  re- 
ported have  a  place  in  these  volumes.  With  all  the 
rest,  he  was  a  generous  respondent  to  calls  to  literary, 
ceremonial,  and  commemorative  occasions,  and  a  not 
unfrequent  contributor  to  the  press.  Still,  the  occa- 
sional addresses  and  papers  that  are  here  brought  to- 
gether were  the  intellectual  recreations  of  a  man  whose 
work  lay  in  other  fields. 
The  foregoing  remarks  have  not  been  made  simply  to 


xxiv  PREFACE. 

generalize  the  labor  that  produced  these  works,  and  to 
enlarge  the  reader's  view  of  this  busy  man  and  life.  It 
is  hoped  that,  so  far  as  they  go,  they  will  set  President 
Garfield  boldly  and  clearly  before  the  eye  of  the  reader. 
Besides,  they  have  an  obvious  bearing  upon  the  works 
themselves.  The  reader  must  remember  the  magnitude 
of  the  labor  that  President  Garfield  performed,  and  the 
conditions  under  which  he  performed  it.  These  com- 
positions are  not  the  essays  of  a  scholar,  working  at  his 
leisure  in  his  library ;  they  are,  with  few  exceptions,  the 
contributions  to  current  discussion  of  a  very  busy  man, 
who  spoke  on  living  questions  because  he  had  some- 
thing to  say.  He  had  extraordinary  power  in  the  organ- 
ization of  thought,  shown  both  in  the  excellence  and 
rapidity  of  his  execution ;  but  many  of  these  speeches 
were  made  under  circumstances  that  taxed  his  power 
to  the  utmost.  He  was  a  hard  reader,  had  a  retentive 
memory,  and  was  careful  to  keep  his  knowledge  within 
reach ;  but,  as  a  matter  of  course,  he  often  had  to  use 
new  information  that  was  hastily  gathered,  or  old  infor- 
mation that  needed  further  verification. 

Mr.  A.  R.  Spofford,  the  accomplished  head  of  the  Li- 
brary of  Congress,  who  well  knew  Garfield's  mental  hab- 
its, has  said,  in  an  admirable  paper  on  his  intellectual 
character  and  methods :  "  He  was  never  chary  of  asking 
assistance  in  laying  out  the  materials  for  any  work  he 
had  to  do.  He  made  no  mystery  of  what  he  was  about ; 
concealed  nothing  of  his  purposes  or  methpds;  drew 
freely  upon  his  friends  for  suggestions ;  used  his  family, 
secretaries,  and  librarians  to  look  up  authorities,  or,  if 
he  found  the  time,  he  looked  them  up  himself.  When 
he  had  examined  the  field  as  thoroughly  as  he  was 
able,  he   organized   his  subject  in   his  own   mind,  and, 


PREFACE.  XXV 

if  the  speech  was  to  be  in  Congress,  he  seldom  wrote 
more  than  a  few  of  its  leading  outlines,  leaving  the  sub- 
stance, as  well  as  the  diction,  to  the  occasion."  This  is 
very  true  and  just.  Mr.  Spofford  also  says :  "  He  was 
ever  most  solicitous  to  verify  every  fact  and  quotation, 
and,  after  speaking  ex  tempore,  he  was  anxious  until  he 
had  carefully  corrected  the  proofs."  ^  This,  too,  is  true 
and  just ;  he  was  a  conscientious  man  in  all  that  he  un- 
dertook. But  the  pressure  of  work  or  the  shortness  of 
time  for  preparation  often  made  the  verification  of  the 
fact  impossible;  he  frequently  had  to  correct  the  proofs 
in  extreme  haste,  perhaps  at  midnight  when  worn  out, 
and  sometimes  he  could  not  correct  them  at  all.  A 
considerable  part  of  the  matter  collected  in  these  vol- 
umes never  had  any  real  revision  from  its  author.  I 
have  indeed,  verified  many  of  the  facts,  dates,  statistics, 
etc.,  as  well  as  revised  the  diction  when  revision  seemed 
essential ;  but  I  fear  that  my  work  will  be  found  a  poor 
substitute  for  the  scholarship,  care,  and  skill  that  the 
author  would  have  brought  to  the  task  had  he  lived  to 
be  his  own  editor. 

The  preparation  of  these  Works  for  publication  was 
intrusted   to   me  by   Mrs.   Garfield.      I    have   earnestly 

sought  to  justify  her  confidence.  It  has  been  a  labor 
of  love ;  and  no  effort  has  been  spared,  no  toil  shrunk 

from,  that  seemed  necessary  to  its  fit  accomplishment. 

I  do  not  doubt  that  defects  and  blemishes  in  my  work 

will  be  discovered ;   but  if  the  American    people  shall 

think  that  upon   the  whole  it  is    not  unworthy  of  the 

text,  I  will  be  content.     Nothing  more  need  be  said  by 

way  of  explaining  these  Works,  or  the  manner  of  their 

*  •*  A  Tribute  of  Respect  from  the  Literary  Society  of  Washington  to  its  late 
President,  James  Abram  Garfield,'*  pp.  i6,  17,  26. 


XXVI  PREFACE. 

preparation  for  publication.  I  am  not  called  upon  to 
discuss  President  Garfield,  or  even  to  characterize  him 
as  thinker,  orator,  writer,  or  statesman.  Now  that  I 
have  put  these  speeches,  addresses,  arguments,  and  pa- 
pers in  the  best  form  that  .1  could,  and  accompanied 
them  with  such  historical  commentary  as  seemed  to  me 
called  for,  I  submit  the  whole  to  that  public  upon  which 
the  distinguished  and  lamented  author  so  deeply  im- 
pressed himself. 


B.  A.  HINSDALE. 


Hiram  College,  Hiram,  Ohio, 
September  i,  1882. 


CONTENTS    OF    VOLUME    I. 


Pagb 

Confiscation  of  the  Property  of  Rebels i 

Speech  delivered  in  the  House  of  Representatives,  January  28,  1864. 

Enrolling  and  Calling  out  the  National  Forces    ....      19 

Speech  delivered  in  the  House  of  Representatives,  June  25,  1864. 

The  Sale  of  Surplus  Gold 35 

Remarks  made  in  the  House  of  Representatives,  February  18  and  March 
15,  1864. 

Free  Commerce  between  the  States 42 

Speech  delivered  in  the  House  of  Representatives,  March  24  and  31, 1864. 

1^   Cabinet  Officers  in  Congress 61 

Speech  delivered  in  the  House  of  Representatives,  January  26,  1865. 

The  Constitutional  Amendment  abolishing  Slavery     ...      73 

Speech  delivered  in  the  House  of  Representatives,  January  13,  1865. 

Suffrage  and  Safety 85 

Oration  delivered  at  Ravenna,  Ohio,  July  4,  1865. 

Restoration  of  the  Southern  States 95 

Speech  delivered  in  the  House  of  Representatives,  February  i,  1866. 

American  Shipping 118 

Remarks  made  in  the  House  of  Representatives,  February  i,  1866,  and 
May  25,  1870. 

The  National  Bureau  of  Education 126 

Speech  delivered  in  the  House  of  Representatives,  June  8,  1866. 


xxviii  CONTENTS  OF  VOLUME  L 

The  Jurisdiction  of  Military  Commissions 143 

Argument  made  before  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States  in  Ex 
parte  L.  P.  Milligan,  W.  A.  Bowles,  and  Stephen  Horsey,  March  6,  1866. 

The  Public  Debt  and  Specie  Payments 183 

Speech  delivered  in  the  House  of  Representatives,  March  16,  1866. 

The  Memory  of  Abraham  Lincoln 202 

Remarks  made  in  the  House  of  Representatives.  April  14,  1866. 

The  Tariff  Bill  of  1866 205 

Speech  delivered  in  the  House  of  Representatives,  July  10,  1866. 

National  Politics 216 

Speech  delivered  at  Warren,  Ohio,  September  i,  1866. 

Reconstruction 243 

Remarks  made  in  the  House  of  Representatives  on  various  Occasions. 

College  Education 265 

Address  delivered  before  the  Literary  Societies  of  Hiram  College,  Hiram, 
Ohio,  June  14,  1867. 

The  Currency 284 

Speech  delivered  in  the  House  of  Representatives,  May  15,  1868. 
Strewing  Flowers  on  the  Graves  of  Union  Soldiers  .    .    .    322 

Oration  delivered  at  Arlington,  Virginia,  May  30,  1868. 

Taxation  of  United  States  Bonds 327 

Speech  delivered  in  the  House  of  Representatives,  July  15,  1868. 

Mr.  Stevens  and  the  Five-Twenty  Bonds 356 

Personal  Explanation  made  in  the  House  of  Representatives,  July  23, 1868. 

Indian  Affairs 364 

Remarks  made  in  the  House  of  Representatives  on  various  Occasions. 

Commissioner  Wells's  Report 383 

Remarks  made  in  the  House  of  Representatives,  January  19,  186^ 

Political  Issues  of  1868 390 

Speech  delivered  at  Orwell,  Ohio,  August  28,  1868. 

The  Reduction  of  the  Army 408 

Speech  delivered  in  the  House  of  Representatives,  February  9, 1869. 

The  Smithsonian  Institution 430 

Remarks  made  in  the  House  of  Representatives,  March  i,  1869. 


CONTENTS  OF  VOLUME  I.  xxix 

The  Medtcal  and  Surgical  History  of  the  Rebellion.    .    .    434 

Remarks  made  in  the  House  of  Representatives,  March  2,  1869. 

Strengthening  the  Pubuc  Credit 439 

Remarks  made  in  the  House  ol  Representatives,  March  j,  1869 

The  Ninth  Census 443 

Remarks  made  in  the  House  of  Representatives,  April  6,  1869. 

The  Ninth  Census 450 

Speech  delivered  in  the  House  of  Representatives,  December  16^  1869. 

The  Canvass  in  Ohio      .    .    .    .  ' 477 

Speech  delivered  at  Mount  Vernon,  Ohio,  August  14,  1869. 

Civil  Service  Reform 499 

Remarks  made  in  the  House  of  Representatives  on  various  Occasions. 

The  Tariff  Bill  of  1870 520 

Speech  delivered  in  the  House  of  Representatives,  April  i,  1870. 

Currency  and  the  Banics 543 

Speech  delivered  in  the  House  of  Representatives,  June  7,  187a 

Currency  and  the  Banks 571 

Speech  delivered  in  the  House  of  Representatives,  June  15,  187a        • 

Currency  and  the  Banks 584 

Speech  delivered  in  the  House  of  Representatives,  June  29,  1870. 

Joshua  R.  Giddings 593 

Address  delivered  at  Jefferson,  Ohio,  July  25,  1870,  at  the  Dedication  of 
the  Giddings  Monument. 

Political  Issues  of  1870 610 

Speech  delivered  at  Mansfield,  Ohio,  August  27,  1870. 

American  Agriculture 632 

Address  delivered  at  the  Northern  Ohio  Fair,  Cleveland,  Ohio,  Octo- 
ber 12,  1S70. 

General  George  H.  Thomas:  his  Life  and  Character     .    .    643 

Oration  delivered  before  the  Society  of  the  Army  of  the  Cumberland,  at 
the  Fourth  Annual  Reunion,  Cleveland,  Ohio,  November  #5,  1870. 

The  Right  to  originate  Revenue  Bills 674 

Speech  delivered  in  the  House  of  Representatives,  March  3,  187 1. 


XXX  CONTENTS  OF  VOLUME  T. 

The  Ku-Klux  Act 702 

Speech  delivered  in  the  House  of  Representatives,  April  4,  1871. 

The  Ohio  Campaign  of  187  i 732 

Speech  delivered  in  Mozart  Hall,  Cincinnati,  August  24,  187 1. 

The  Fourteenth  Amendment  and  Representation     ....    761 
Remarks  made  in  the  House  of  Representatives,  December  12,  187 1. 


APPENDIX. 

I.  Letter  to  Major- General  Rosecrans 767 

II.  Letter  to  Secretary  Chase 772 

III.  Remarks  on  General  Rosecrans 775 


THE    WORKS 


OF 


JAMES    A.    GARFIELD. 


CONFISCATION  OF  THE  PROPERTY 

OF  REBELS 

SPEECH    DELIVERED   IN   THE    HOUSE  OF  REPRESENTATIVES, 

January  28,  1864. 


The  confiscation  of  property  as  a  punishment  for  treason  attracted  the 
attention  of  Congress  early  in  the  war.  August  6,  186 1,  an  act  was  ap- 
proved, the  first  section  of  which  authorized  and  directed  the  seizure,  con- 
fiscation, and  condemnation  of  property,  of  whatever  kind  or  description, 
that  should  be  purchased,  acquired,  sold,  given,  used,  or  employed  with 
intent  to  aid,  abet,  or  promote  insurrection  or  resistance  to  the  laws  of 
the  United  States.  The  fourth  section  of  the  same  act  declared  that  all 
claims  to  the  labor  or  service  of  any  slave  should  be  forfeited,  provided  said 
slave  should,  by  the  requirement  or  the  permission  of  his  owner,  or  his 
ov^-ner's  agent,  take  up  arms  against  the  United  States,  or  perform  labor  in 
or  upon  any  fort,  navy- yard,  dock,  armory,  ship,  intrenchment,  or  in  any 
military  or  naval  service  whatsoever  against  the  government  and  lawful 
authority  of  the  United  States.  July  17, 1862,  a  much  more  rigorous  and 
sweepting  act  was  approved.  It  provided  that  every  person  adjudged 
guilty  of  treason  against  the  United  States  should  suffer  death,  or,  at  the 
discretion  of  the  court,  be  imprisoned  not  less  than  five  years,  be  fined  not 
less  than  ten  thousand  dollars  (the  fine  to  be  levied  on  all  property,  real 
and  personal,  excluding  slaves),  and  all  his  slaves,  if  any,  be  declared  and 
made  free.  This  act  also  provided  that,  to  insure  the  speedy  termination 
of  the  rebellion  then  in  progress,  it  should  be  made  the  duty  of  the  Presi- 
dent to  cause  the  seizure  of  all  the  estate  and  property,  money,  stocks, 

VOL.  I.  I 


2  CONFISCATION  OF  REBEJL  PROPERTY. 

credits,  and  effects  of  certain  enumerated  classes  of  persons  (six  in  num- 
ber), and  to  apply  and  use  the  same  and  the  proceeds  thereof  for  t|je 
support  of  the  Army  of  the  United  States.  While  this  bill  was  pending 
in  the  two  Houses,  special  attention  was  called  to  clause  2,  section  3, 
Article  III.  of  the  Constitution:  "The  Congress  shall  have  power  to 
declare  the  punishment  of  treason ;  but  no  attainder  of  treason  shall  work 
corruption  of  blood,  or  forfeiture,  except  during  the  life  of  the  person 
attainted."  It  became  known  that  President  Lincoln  held  that  the 
phrase  "  except  during  the  life  of  the  person  attainted  "  limited  the  time 
for  which  the  forfeiture  of  real  estate  might  be  worked,  rather  than  the 
period  within  which  it  might  be  worked.  The  President,  supposing  that 
the  bill  would  pass  in  a  form  disregarding  this  limitation,  prepared  a  veto 
in  advance,  a  copy  of  which  he  subsequently  ^  laid  before  the  House  of 
Representatives  for  their  information.  Congress  passed  the  bill  in  the 
form  proposed,  but  to  avert  the  veto  sent  with  the  bill  to  the  White 
House  a  joint  resolution  framed  to  remove  the  President's  objections, 
of  which  this  was  the  last  clause :  "  Nor  shall  any  punishment  or  pro- 
ceedings under  said  act  be  so  construed  as  to  work  a  forfeiture  of  the 
real  estate  of  the  offender  beyond  his  natural  life."  Considering  the  bill 
and  the  resolution  "as  being  substantially  one,"  President  Lincoln  ap- 
proved and  signed  both. 

January  7,  1864,  Mr.  J.  F.  Wilson  of  Iowa  introduced  into  the  House 
of  Representatives  a  joint  resolution  explanatory  of  the  Act  of  July  1 7, 
1862,  which  as  reported  back  from  the  Judiciary  Committee,  omitting  a 
proviso  that  is  immaterial  for  the  present  purpose,  read  thus :  "  That  the 
last  clause  of  a  joint  resolution  explanatory  of  *  An  Act  to  suppress  in- 
surrection, to  punish  treason  and  rebellion,  to  seize  and  confiscate  the 
property  of  rebels,  and  for  other  purposes,'  approved  July  17,  1862,  be, 
and  the  same  hereby  is,  so  amended  as  to  read,  *  Nor  shall  any  punish- 
ment or  proceeding  under  said  act  be  so  construed  as  to  work  a  forfeit- 
ure of  the  estate  of  the  offender  contrary  to  the  Constitution  of  the 
United  States.' "  As  in  1862,  the  clause  of  the  Constitution  respecting 
forfeitures  was  a  main  point  in  the  debate. 

While  Mr.  S.  S.  Cox,  then  of  Ohio,  now  of  New  York,  was  speaking, 
January  14,  Mr.  Garfield  said  :  "  I  wish  to  ask  my  colleague  a  practical 
rather  than  a  legal  question.  I  wish  to  know  whether  the  objection  he 
raises  to  this  resolution  is  not  itself  obnoxious  to  this  objection.  We 
punish  men  for  civil  and  for  criminal  offences,  great  and  small,  in  all  the 
higher  and  lower  courts  of  the  country,  by  taking  their  property  from 
them,  so  that  their  children  can  never  have  the  benefit  of  it  after  the 
parent's  death.  Now,  while  we  do  this  constantly  in  our  courts,  by  civil 
and  criminal  processes,  does  not  my  colleague  propose  to  make  an  ex- 
ception in  favor  of  the  crime  of  treason  ?    Why  should  not  the  children 

'  July  i7i  1862. 


CONFISCATION  OF  REBEL  PROPERTY.  3 

of  traitors  suffer  the  same  kind  of  loss  and  inconvenience  as  the  chil- 
dren of  thieves  and  other  felons  do?  I  ask  the  gentleman  whether  his 
position  does  not  involve  this  great  absurdity  and  injustice  ?  " 

In  reply  to  a  question  by  Mr.  Cox,  Mr.  Garfield  said  :  "  I  do  not  see 
that  in  this  resolution  we  do  break  the  Constitution.  If  the  gentleman 
can  show  me  that  it  violates  the  Constitution,  I  will  vote  against  it  with 
him,  even  though  every  member  of  my  party  votes  for  it ;  that  makes  no 
difference  to  me.  I  will  say,  however,  that  I  had  supposed  that  the 
intention  of  that  clause  of  the  Constitution  was  to  prevent  the  punish- 
ment of  treason  when  an  individual  was  declared  guilty  of  it  after  his 
death.  I  had  supposed  that  that  was  the  purpose  of  it,  and  if  so,  it 
seems  to  me  that  this  bill  is  not  obnoxious  to  the  objection  which  the 
gentleman  raises  to  it.*' 

January  28,  the  House  still  having  under  consideration  the  Wilson 
resolution,  Mr.  Garfield  delivered  the  following  speech.  February  5, 
the  House  passed  the  resolution.  No  action  was  had  in  the  Senate. 
This  was  the  end  of  the  resolution,  and  also  the  end  of  all  serious 
attempts  to  legislate  further  upon  the  confiscation  of  the  property  of 
rebels  for  the  punishment  of  treason. 


MR.  SPEAKER,  —  I  had  not  intended  to  ask  the  attention 
of  the  House,  or  to  occupy  its  time  on  this  question  of 
confiscation  at  all;  but  some  things  have  been  said  touching  its 
military  aspects  which  make  it  proper  for  me  to  trespass  upon 
the  patience  of  the  House  even  at  this  late  period  of  the  discus- 
sion. Feeling  that,  fti  some  small  degree,  I  represent  on  this 
floor  the  army  of  the  republic,  I  am  the  more  emboldened  to 
speak  on  the  subject  before  us.  I  have  been  surprised  that,  in 
so  long  and  so  able  a  discussion,  so  little  reference  has  been 
made  to  the  merits  of  the  resolution  itself.  Very  much  of  the 
debate  has  had  reference  to  questions  which  I  believe,  with  all 
deference  to  the  better  judgment  and  maturcr  experience  of 
others,  arc  not  germane  to  the  subject  before  the  House. 

In  the  wide  range  of  discussion,  the  various  theories  of  the 
legal  and  political  status  of  the  rebellious  States  have  been 
examined,  —  whether  they  exist  any  longer  as  States,  and,  if 
they  do,  whether  they  are  in  the  Union  or  out  of  it.  It  is  per- 
haps necessary  that  we  take  ground  upon  that  question  as  pre- 
liminary to  the  discussion  of  the  resolution  itself.  Two  theories, 
differing  widely  from  each  other,  have  been  proposed ;  but  I 
cannot  consider  either  of  them    as  wholly  correct.     I   cannot 


4  CONFISCATION  OF  REBEL  PROPERTY. 

agree  with  the  distinguished  gentleman  from  Pennsylvania,^  who 
acknowledges  that  these  States  are  out  of  the  Union  and  now 
constitute  a  foreign  people.  Nor  can  I,  on  the  other  hand, 
agree  with  those  who  believe  that  the  insurgent  States  are  not 
only  in  the  Union,  but  have  lost  none  of  their  rights  under  the 
Constitution  and  laws  of  the  Union. 

Our  situation  affords  a  singular  parallel  to  that  of  the  people 
of  Great  Britain  in  their  great  revolution  of  the  seventeenth 
century.  From  time  immemorial  it  was  the  fiction  of  English 
law  that  the  kingship  was  immortal,  hereditary,  and  inalienable; 
that  the  king  was  "  king  by  the  grace  of  God  " ;  that  he  could 
do  no  wrong,  and  that  his  throne  could  never  be  vacant.  But 
the  logic  of  events  brought  these  theories  to  a  practical  test 
James  II.  left  the  throne,  threw  the  great  seal  of  the  kingdom 
into  the  Thames,  and,  fleeing  from  his  own  people,  took  refuge 
in  France.  The  great  statesmen  of  the  realm  took  counsel 
together  on  some  of  the  very  questions  which  we  are  discussing 
to-day.  One  said,  **  The  king  has  abdicated ;  we  will  put 
another  in  his  place."  Another  said,  "The  crown  is  hereditary; 
we  must  put  the  heir  in  his  place."  The  men  of  books  and 
black-letter  learning  answered,  Nemo  est  hares  viventis,  "The 
king  is  alive,  and  can  have  no  heir."  Another  said,  "  We  will 
appoint  a  regent,  and  consider  the  kingship  in  abeyance  until 
the  king  returns."  The  people  said,  "  We  will  have  a  king,  but 
not  James."  Through  all  this  struggle  two  facts  were  apparent: 
the  throne  was  vacant,  and  their  king  was  unworthy  to  fill  it. 
The  British  nation  cut  through  the  entanglement  of  words,  and 
filled  it  with  the  man  of  their  choice.  We  are  taught  by  this 
that,  whenever  a  great  people  desire  to  do  a  thing  which  ought 
to  be  done,  they  will  find  the  means  of  doing  it. 

In  this  government  we  have  thrown  off  the  kingly  fiction, 
but  there  is  another  which  we  are  following  as  slavishly  as 
ever  England  followed  that.  Here,  corporations  are  more  than 
kings.  It  is  the  doctrine  of  our  common  law  (if  we  may  be  said 
to  have  a  common  law)  that  corporations  have  neither  con- 
sciences nor  souls ;  that  they  cannot  commit  crimes ;  that  they 
cannot  be  punished ;  and  that  they  are  immortal.  These  prop- 
ositions are  being  applied  to  the  rebel  States.  They  are  corpo- 
rations of  a  political  character,  bodies  corporate  and  politic; 
they  are  immortal,  and  cannot  be  touched  by  the  justice  of  law, 

*  Mr.  Stevens. 


CONFISCATION  OF  REBEL  PROPERTY.  5 

or  by  the  power  of  an  outraged  government.  They  hover 
around  our  borders  like  malignant,  bloody  fiends,  carrying 
death  in  their  course ;  and  yet  we  are  told  they  cannot  be  pun- 
ished nor  their  ancient  rights  be  invaded.  The  people  of  the 
South,  under  the  direction  of  these  phantom  States,  are  moving 
the  powers  of  earth  and  hell  to  destroy  this  government.  They 
plead  the  order  of  their  States  as  their  shield  from  punishment,' 
and  the  States  plead  the  impunity  of  soulless  corporations.  But 
the  American  people  will  not  be  deluded  by  these  theories,  nor 
waste  time  in  discussing  them.  They  are  striking  through  all 
shams  with  the  sword,  and  are  finding  a  practical  solution,  as 
England  did.  And  what  is  that  practical  solution?  The  Su- 
preme Court  of  the  United  States  has  aided  us,  at  this  point,  in 
the  Prize  Cases  decided  on  March  3,  1863.^  It  is  there  said  in 
effect — 

"That  since  July  13,  1861,  the  United  States  have  had  full  belligerent 
rights  against  all  persons  residing  in  the  districts  declared  by  the  Presi- 
dent's proclamation  to  be  in  rebellion." 

"  That  the  laws  of  war,  whether  that  war  be  civil  or  inter  gentesy  con- 
vert every  citizen  of  the  hostile  state  into  a  public  enemy,  and  treat  him 
accordingly,  whatever  may  have  been  his  previous  conduct." 

"That  all  the  rights  derived  from  the  laws  of  war  may  now,  since 
1 86 1,  be  lawfully  and  constitutionally  exercised  against  all  the  citizens 
of  the  districts  in  rebellion." 

The  court  decided  that  the  same  laws  of  war  which  apply  to 
hostile  foreign  states  are  to  be  applied  to  this  rebellion.  But  in 
so  deciding  they  do  not  decide  that  the  rebellious  States  are, 
therefore,  a  foreign  people.  I  do  not  hold  it  necessary  to  admit 
that  they  are  a  foreign  people.  I  do  not  admit  it.  I  claim,  on 
the  contrary,  that  the  obligations  of  the  Constitution  still  hang 
over  them;  but  by  their  own  act  of  rebellion  they  have  cut 
themselves  off  from  all  rights  and  privileges  under  the  Constitu- 
tion. When  the  government  of  the  United  States  declared  the 
country  in  a  state  of  war,  the  rebel  States  came  under  the  laws 
of  war.  By  their  acts  of  rebellion  they  swept  away  every  ves- 
tige of  their  civil  and  political  rights  under  the  Constitution  of 
the  United  States.  Their  obligations  still  remained;  but  the 
reciprocal  rights  which  usually  accompany  obligations  they  had 
forfeited. 

I  2  Black,  635. 


6  CONFISCATION  OF  REBEL  PROPERTY. 

The  question  then  lies  open  before  us,  In  a  state  of  war, 
under  the  laws  of  war,  is  this  resolution  constitutional  and  wise? 
I  insist,  Mr.  Speaker,  that  the  only  constitutional  question  in- 
volved in  the  resolution  is  whether  this  government,  in  the 
exercise  of  its  rights  as  a  belligerent,  under  the  laws  of  war,  can 
or  cannot  punish  armed  rebels  and  confiscate  their  estates,  both 
personal  and  real,  for  life  and  forever.  This  is  the  only  con- 
stitutional question  before  us. 

Gentlemen  have  learnedly  discussed  the  constitutional  powers 
of  Congress  to  punish  the  crime  of  treason.  It  matters  not 
how  that  question  is  decided ;  in  my  judgment,  it  has  no  bear- 
ing whatever  on  the  resolution  before  the  House.  I  will  only 
say  in  passing,  that  the  Supreme  Court  has  never  decided  that 
the  clause  of  the  Constitution  relating  to  treason  prohibits  for- 
feiture beyond  the  lifetime  of  persons  attainted.  No  man  in 
this  House  has  found  any  decision  of  the  Supreme  Court  giving 
the  meaning  to  the  Constitution  which  gentlemen  on  the  other 
side  of  the  chamber  have  given  to  it.  They  can  claim  no  more 
than  that  the  question  is  res  non  adjudicata.  The  arguments 
we  have  heard  are  sufficient  evidence  to  me,  at  least,  that  the 
framers  of  our  Constitution  intended  that  Congress  should  have 
full  power  to  define  treason,  and  provide  for  its  punishment; 
but  the  rule  of  the  English  common  law,  which  permitted 
attainder,  corruption  of  blood,  and  forfeiture  to  be  declared 
after  the  death  of  the  accused,  should  not  prevail  in  this  coun- 
try. To  me  the  clause  carries  an  absurdity  on  its  face,  if  it  be 
interpreted  to  mean  that  treason,  the  highest  crime  known  to 
law,  shall  be  punished  with  less  severity,  so  far  as  it  regards  the 
estate  of  the  criminal,  than  any  other  crime  or  misdemeanor 
whatsoever.  But,  as  I  before  said,  the  present  law  of  confiscation 
is  based  on  the  rights  of  belligerents  under  the  laws  of  war. 

The  gentleman  from  New  York^  a  few  days  since,  in  his 
address  to  the  House,  gave  us  a  history  of  the  rebellions  which 
have  occurred  in  this  country.  I  wish  to  call  his  attention  to 
one  of  our  rebellions,  a  very  important  one,  which  he  did  not 
notice,  and  in  which  the  question  of  confiscation  was  very  fully 
and  very  practically  discussed.  This  fact  has  not,  I  believe, 
been  brought  to  the  attention  of  the  House.  Do  gentlemen 
forget  that  the  Union  had  its  origin  in  revolution,  and  that  con- 
fiscation played  a  very  important  part   in  that  revolution?     It 

*  Mr.  Fernando  Wood. 


CONFISCATION  OF  REBEL  PROPERTY.  7 

was  a  civil  war;  and  the  Colonies  were  far  more  equally  divided 
on  the  question  of  loyalty  than  the  States  of  the  South  now  are 
on  the  questions  of  to-day.  Many  of  the  thirteen  Colonies  had 
almost  equal  parties  for  and  against  England  in  that  struggle. 
In  New  York  the  parties  were  of  nearly  equal  strength.  In 
South  Carolina  there  were  probably  more  Royalists  than  Whigs. 
Twenty  thousand  American  Tories  appeared  in  the  armies 
against  us  in  the  Revolutionary  struggle.  Thirty  Tory  regiments 
served  in  the  British  line.  Our  fathers  had  to  deal  with  these 
men,  and  with  their  estates.  How  did  they  solve  the  problem? 
I  have  looked  into  the  history  of  its  solution,  and  find  it  full 
of  instruction.  Every  one  of  the  thirteen  States,  with  a  single 
exception,  confiscated  the  real  and  personal  property  of  Tories 
in  arms.  They  did  it,  too,  by  the  recommendation  of  Congress. 
Not  only  so,  but  they  drove  Tory  sympathizers  from  the  coun- 
try; they  would  not  permit  them  to  remain  upon  American 
soil.  Examine  the  statutes  of  every  State,  except  New 
Hampshire,  where  the  tide  of  battle  never  reached,  and  you 
will  find  confiscation  laws  of  the  most  thorough  and  sweeping 
character.  When  our  commissioners  were  negotiating  the 
treaty  of  peace,  the  last  matter  of  difference  and  discussion  was 
that  of  confiscated  property.  The  British  commissioners  urged 
the  restoration  of  confiscated  estates,  but  Jay  and  Franklin  and 
their  colleagues  defended  the  right  of  confiscation  with  great 
ability,  and  refused  to  sign  the  treaty  at  all  if  that  was  to  be  a 
condition.  While  these  negotiations  were  pending,  the  States 
memorialized  Congress  to  guard  against  any  concession  on  the 
point  in  dispute,  and  our  commissioners  were  instructed  by 
Congress  to  admit  no  conditions  which  would  compel  the  res- 
toration of  confiscated  estates.  The  final  settlement  of  the  ques- 
tion will  be  found  in  the  fifth  article  of  the  treaty  of  peace  as 
it  now  stands  recorded,  which  provided  that  Congress  should 
recommend  to  the  several  Colonies  to  restore  confiscated  prop- 
erty ;  but  it  was  well  understood  by  both  parties  that  it  would 
not  be  done.  Congress  passed  the  resolution  of  recommenda- 
tion as  a  matter  of  form ;  but  no  State  complied,  or  was  ex- 
pected to  comply  with  it.  It  was,  however,  provided  that  no 
further  confiscations  should  be  made,  and  that  Tories  should  be 
permitted  to  remain  in  America  for  twelve  months  after  the 
treaty. 
In  the  debates  of  the  English  House  of  Lords  in  1783,  up- 


8  CONFISCATION  OF  REBEL  PROPERTY. 

on  the  treaty  of  peace,  Lord  Shelbume  frankly  admitted  that 
the  Loyalists  were  left  without  better  provision  being  made  for 
them,  **  from  the  unhappy  necessity  of  public  affairs,  which  in- 
duced the  extremity  of  submitting  the  fate  of  their  property 
to  the  discretion  of  their  enemies."  "  I  have,"  he  said,  "  but 
one  answer  to  give  the  House;  it  is  the  answer  I  gave  my 
own  bleeding  heart.  A  part  must  be  wounded,  that  the  whole 
of  the  empire  may  not  perish.  If  better  terms  could  be  had, 
think  you,  my  lord,  that  I  would  not  have  embraced  them? 
/  had  but  the  alternative  either  to  accept  the  terms  proposed  or 
continue  the  war!*  Lord  Shelburne  also  declared,  that  "  with- 
out one  drop  of  blood  spilt,  and  without  one  fifth  of  the  ex- 
pense of  one  year's  campaign,  happiness  and  ease  can  be  given 
them  in  as  ample  a  manner  as  these  blessings  were  ever  in  their 
enjoyment."  The  Lord  Chancellor  defended  the  treaty  on  other 
grounds,  but  said,  if  necessary,  "  Parliament  could  take  cogni- 
zance of  their  case,  and  impart  to  each  suffering  individual  that 
relief  which  reason,  perhaps  policy,  certainly  virtue  and  reli- 
gion, required."  ^ 

Thus  Revolutionary  confiscation  passed  into  history  by  the 
consent  and  agreement  of  both  belligerents.  Its  principles 
were  also  defended  by  our  government  after  the  adoption  of 
the  Constitution.  In  1792  Mr.  Jefferson,  then  Secretary  of 
State,  in  answer  to  some  complaints  of  the  British  government, 
reviewed  the  whole  question  at  great  length  and  with  great 
ability.  I  ask  my  colleague  ^  to  notice  these  extracts  relating 
to  belligerent  rights,  which  he  has  just  been  discussing. 

"  It  cannot  be  denied  that  the  state  of  war  strictly  permits  a  nation  to 
seize  the  property  of  its  enemies  found  within  its  own  limits  or  taken  in 
war,  and  in  whatever  form  it  exists,  whether  in  action  or  possession. 
This  is  so  perspicuously  laid  down  by  one  of  the  most  respectable 
writers  on  subjects  of  this  kind,  that  I  shall  use  his  words :  *  Since  it  is 
a  condition  of  war,  that  enemies  may  be  deprived  of  all  their  rights,  it 
is  reasonable  that  everything  of  an  enemy's,  found  among  his  enemies, 
should  change  its  owner  and  go  to  the  treasury.  It  is,  moreover,  usually 
directed,  in  all  declarations  of  war,  that  the  goods  of  enemies,  as  well 
those  found  among  us  as  those  taken  in  war,  shall  be  confiscated.  If  we 
follow  the  mere  right  of  war,  even  immovable  property  may  be  sold  and 
its  price  carried  into  the  treasury,  as  is  the  custom  with  movable  property. 

1  See  Sabine's  American  Loyalists,  Vol.  I.  pp.  101,  102  (Boston,  1864). 

2  Mr.  Finck  of  Ohio. 


CONFISCATION  OF  REBEL  PROPERTY.  9 

But  in  almost  all  Europe,  it  is  only  notified  that  their  profits,  during  the 
war,  shall  be  received  by  the  treasury ;  and  the  war  being  ended,  the 
immovable  property  itself  is  restored,  by  agreement,  to  the  former 
owner.' "  ^ 

"Exile  and  Confiscations.  —  After  premising  that  these  are  lawful 
acts  of  war,  I  have  shown  that  the  fifth  article  [of  the  treaty  of  1 783] 
was  recommendatory  only,  its  stipulations  being,  not  to  restore  the  confis- 
cations and  exiles,  but  to  recommend  to  the  State  Legislatures  to  restore 
them ;  —  that  this  word,  having  but  one  meaning,  establishes  the  intent 
of  the  parties ;  and,  moreover,  that  it  was  particularly  explained  by  the 
American  negotiators  that  the  Legislatures  would  be  free  to  comply  with 
the  recommendation  or  not,  and  probably  would  not  comply ;  —  that  the 
British  negotiators  so  understood  it ;  —  that  the  British  ministry  so  un- 
derstood it ;  and  the  members  of  both  Houses  of  Parliament y  as  well 
those  who  approved  as  who  disapproved  the  article." ' 

Thus  the  Revolutionary  fathers,  both  before  and  after  the 
adoption  of  the  Constitution,  defended  confiscation. 

The  Tories  who  fled  to  England  called  upon  the  Crown  for 
support.  A  commission  was  appointed  to  examine  their  claims 
and  provide  for  their  wants.  It  is  a  significant  fact,  that  of  the 
vast  numbers  of  Tories  perhaps  not  a  thousand  remained  in 
this  country  after  the  war.  The  people  would  not  endure  their 
presence.  They  were  driven  out,  and  took  refuge  in  all  quar- 
ters of  the  globe.  They  colonized  New  Brunswick  and  Nova 
Scotia,  and  were  scattered  along  the  borders  of  Canada.  The 
States  would  show  no  favor,  even  to  the  few  who  came  back 
under  the  provisions  of  the  treaty,  and  refused  them  the  right 
of  voting,  or  of  holding  office  or  property.  It  was  well  known 
that  there  could  be  no  peace  between  them  and  our  loyal 
people.  Their  history  is  a  sad  record  of  infamy,  obscurity, 
and  misery.  Some  exhibited  their  vengeful  hate  long  after  the 
war  was  over.  Girty  and  his  associates,  who  murdered  Craw- 
ford in  the  Indian  wars  of  1782,  were  Tories  of  the  Revolution. 
Bowles  and  Panton,  leaders  among  the  Creek  Indians,  and  who 
started  the  Florida  troubles,  which  resulted  in  a  long  and  bloody 
conflict  in  the  swamps  of  that  region,  were  Tories.  As  a  class, 
they  went  out  with  the  brand  of  Cain  upon  them,  and  were  not 
permitted  to  return.     One  State  alone  relented.     South  Caro- 

*  Jefferson's  Works,  Vol.  III.  p.  369.    The  writer  quoted  by  Jefferson  is  Bynker- 
shoek. 

«  Ibid.,  Vol.  III.  p.  423. 


A 


lO  CONFISCATION  OF  REBEL  PROPERTY. 

Una  passed  an  act  of  oblivion,  restored  a  large  part  of  the  con- 
fiscated estates,  and  permitted  the  Tories  after  a  short  time  to 
vote  and  hold  office.  Her  policy  has  borne  its  bitter  fruit. 
Her  government  has  hardly  been  entitled  to  be  called  republi- 
can. The  spirit  of  monarchy  and  disloyalty  has  ruled  her  coun- 
cils, and  has  at  last  plunged  the  republic  into  the  most  gigantic 
and  bloody  of  rebellions. 

Let  us  take  counsel  from  the  wisdom  of  our  fathers.  Is  it 
probable  that  the  same  men  who  confiscated  all  the  property  of 
armed  Tories  would,  a  few  years  later,  establish  it  as  a  funda- 
mental doctrine  of  the  Constitution  that  no  confiscation  can  be 
made  beyond  the  lifetime  of  the  attainted  traitor?  Is  it  proba- 
ble that  men  who  had  just  done  what  they  stubbornly  held  to 
be  right  should  enact  as  a  part  of  the  supreme  law  of  the  land 
that  the  same  thing  should  never  be  done  again  ? 

I  now  come  more  directly  to  consider  the  policy  involved 
in  the  resolution  before  us.  Landed  estates,  Mr.  Speaker, 
are  inseparably  connected  with  the  peculiar  institution  of  the 
South.  It  is  well  known  that  the  power  of  slavery  rests  in 
large  plantations;  that  the  planter's  capital  drives  the  poor 
whites  to  the  mountains,  where  liberty  always  loves  to  dwell, 
and  to  the  swamps  and  by-places  of  the  South ;  and  that  the 
bulk  of  all  the  real  estate  is  in  the  hands  of  the  slave-owners 
who  have  plotted  this  great  conspiracy.  Let  me  give  you  an 
instance  of  this,  one  of  a  thousand  that  might  be  given.  In  the 
town  of  Murfreesboro',  Rutherford  County,  Tennessee  (a  place 
made  sacred  and  glorious  forever  by  the  valor  of  our  army), 
there  are  14,493  acres  of  land  under  enclosure  owned  by  six- 
teen men ;  three  of  the  sixteen  men  own  more  than  ten  thou- 
sand of  the  acres.  One  of  the  three  owns  half  of  the  whole 
township  of  Murfreesboro*.  And  this  is  only  a  specimen  of 
what  these  men  of  the  South  are  to  the  lands  of  the  South. 
Only  a  few  hundred  men  own  the  bulk  of  the  land  in  any 
Southern  State ;  they  hold  the  lands  and  own  the  slaves.  These 
men  plotted  the  rebellion  and  thrust  it  upon  us.  They  have 
had  the  political  power  in  their  hands,  and  if  you  permit  them 
to  go  back  to  their  lands  they  will  have  it  again.  The  laws  of 
nature,  the  laws  of  society,  cannot  be  overcome  by  the  resolu- 
tions of  Congress.  Grant  a  general  amnesty,  let  these  men  go 
back  to  their  lands,  and  they  will  again  control  the  South. 
They  have  so  long  believed  themselves  born  to  rule,  that  they 


CONFISCATION  OF  REBEL  PROPERTY.  u 

will  rule  the  poor  man  in  the  future,  as  in  the  past,  with  a  rod 
of  iron.  The  landless  man  of  the  South  has  learned  the  lesson 
of  submission  so  well  that  when  he  is  confronted  by  a  landed 
proprietor  he  begins  to  be  painfully  deferential ;  he  is  facile  and 
dependent,  and  less  a  man,  than  if  he  stood  on  a  little  spot  of 
God's  earth  covered  by  his  own  title-deed. 

Sir,  if  we  want  a  lasting  peace,  if  we  want  to  put  down  this 
rebelHon  so  that  it  shall  stay  forever  put  down,  we  must  put 
down  its  guilty  cause ;  we  must  put  down  slavery ;  we  must  take 
away  the  platform  on  which  slavery  stands,  —  the  great  landed 
estates  of  the  armed  rebels  of  the  South.  Strike  that  platform 
from  beneath  its  feet,  take  that  land  away,  and  divide  it  into 
homes  for  the  men  who  have  saved  our  country.  I  put  it  to 
this  House  as  a  necessity  which  stares  us  in  the  face.  What,  let 
me  ask  you,  will  you  do  with  the  battle-fields  of  the  South  ? 
Who  own  them?  Who  own  the  red  field  of  Stone  River?  Two 
or  three  men  own  it  all.  And  who  are  these  two  or  three  men? 
Rebels,  every  one,  —  one  of  them  a  man  who  once  sat  in  this 
chamber,  but  who  is  now  a  leader  in  the  rebel  army.  Will  you 
let  hint  come  back  and  repossess  his  land  ?  Will  you  ask  his 
permission  when  you  go  to  visit  the  grave  of  your  dead  son  who 
sleeps  in  the  bosom  of  that  sacred  field?  If  the  principles  of 
the  gentlemen  on  the  other  side  be  carried  out,  there  is  not  one 
of  the  great  battle-fields  of  the  war  (save  Gettysburg,  which  lies 
yonder  on  this  side  of  the  line)  that  will  not  descend  for  all  time 
to  come  to  the  sons  of  rebels,  —  to  men  whose  fathers  gained  a 
bad  eminence  by  fighting  against  their  country,  and  who  will 
love  those  fathers  for  affection's  sake,  and  love  rebellion  for  their 
fathers'  sake.  God  forbid  that  we  should  ever  visit  those  spots, 
made  sacred  by  the  blood  of  so  many  thousand  brave  men,  and 
see  our  enemies  holding  the  fields  and  ploughing  the  graves  of 
our  brethren,  while  the  sweat  of  slaves  falls  on  the  sod  which 
ought  to  be  forever  sacred  to  every  American  citizen ! 

The  history  of  opinion  and  its  changes  in  the  army  is  a  very 
interesting  one.  When  the  war  broke  out,  men  of  all  parties 
sprang  to  arms  by  a  common  impulse  of  generous  patriotism,  — 
which  I  am  glad  to  acknowledge  here  in  the  presence  of  those  in 
whose  hearts  that  impulse  seems  now  to  be  utterly  dead.  I 
remember  to  have  said  to  a  friend  when  I  entered  the  army, 
"You  hate  slavery;  so  do  I;  but  I  hate  disunion  more.  Let 
us  drop  the  slavery  question  and   fight  to  sustain  the  Union. 


12  CONFISCATION  OF  REBEL  PROPERTY. 

When  the  supremacy  of  the  government  has  been  re-established, 
we  will  attend  to  the  other  question."  I  said  to  another,  "  You 
love  slavery.  Do  you  love  the  Union  more?  If  you  do,  go 
with  me ;  we  will  let  slavery  alone,  and  fight  for  the  Union. 
When  that  is  saved,  we  will  take  up  our  old  quarrel,  if  there  is 
anything  left  to  quarrel  about."  I  started  out  with  that  position, 
taken  in  good  faith,  as  did  thousands  of  others  of  all  parties. 
But  the  army  soon  found  that,  do  what  it  would,  the  black 
phantom  met  it  everywhere,  —  in  the  camp,  in  the  bivouac,  on 
the  battle-field,  —  and  at  all  times.  It  was  a  ghost  that  would 
not  be  laid.  Slavery  was  both  the  strength  and  the  weakness  of 
the  enemy :  his  strength,  for  it  tilled  his  fields  and  fed  his  legions ; 
his  weakness,  for  in  the  hearts  of  slaves  dwelt  dim  prophecies 
that  their  deliverance  from  bondage  would  be  the  outcome  of 
the  war.  Mr.  Seward  well  says,  in  an  official  despatch  to  our 
Minister  at  the  Court  of  St.  James,  "  Everywhere  the  American 
general  receives  his  most  useful  and  reliable  information  from 
the  negro,  who  hails  his  coming  as  the  harbinger  of  freedom." 
These  ill-used  men  came  from  the  cotton-fields;  they  swam 
rivers,  they  climbed  mountains,  they  came  through  jungles  in 
the  darkness  and  storms  of  the  night,  to  tell  us  that  the  enemy 
was  coming  here  or  coming  there.  They  were  our  true  friends 
in  every  case.  There  has  hardly  been  a  battle,  a  march,  or  any 
important  event  of  the  war,  where  the  friend  of  our  cause,  the 
black  man,  has  not  been  found  truthful  and  helpful,  and  always 
devotedly  loyal.  The  conviction  forced  itself  upon  the  mind 
of  every  soldier  that  behind  the  rebel  army  of  soldiers  the  black 
army  of  laborers  was  feeding  and  sustaining  the  rebellion,  and 
there  could  be  no  victory  till  its  main  support  should  be  taken 
away. 

"  You  take  my  house  when  you  do  take  the  prop 
That  doth  sustain  my  house.'* 

The  rebellion  falls  when  you  take  away  its  chief  prop,  slavery 
and  landed  estates. 

Gentlemen  on  the  other  side,  you  tell  me  that  this  is  an  Aboli- 
tion war.  If  you  please  to  say  so,  I  grant  it.  The  rapid  cur- 
rent of  events  has  made  the  army  of  the  republic  an  Abolition 
army.  I  can  find  in  the  ranks  a  thousand  men  who  are  in 
favor  of  sweeping  away  slavery  to  every  dozen  that  desire  to 
preserve  it.  They  have  been  where  they  have  seen  its  malevo- 
lence, its  baleful  effects  upon  the  country  and  the  Union,  and 


CONFISCATION  OF  REBEL  PROPERTY,  13 

they  demand  that  it  shall  be  swept  away.  I  never  expect  to 
discuss  the  demerits  of  slavery  again,  for  I  deem  it  unnecessary. 
The  fiat  has  gone  forth,  and  it  is  dead  unless  the  body-snatchers 
on  the  other  side  of  this  House  shall  give  it  galvanic  life.  You 
may  say  to  me  that  slavery  is  a  divine  institution;  you  may 
prove  to  your  own  satisfaction  from  the  word  of  God,  perhaps, 
that  slavery  is  a  beneficent  institution.  I  will  say  to  you  that 
all  this  may  be  entirely  satisfactory  to  your  mind,  but  your  be- 
loved friend  slavery  is  no  more.  This  is  a  world  of  bereave- 
ments and  changes,  and  I  announce  to  you  that  your  friend  has 
departed.  Hang  the  drapery  of  mourning  on  the  bier !  Go  in 
long  and  solemn  procession  after  the  hearse,  if  you  please,  and 
shed  your  tears  of  sorrow  over  the  grave ;  but  life  is  too  short 
to  allow  me  to  waste  an  hour  in  listening  to  your  tearful  eulogy 
over  the  deceased. 

I  come  now  to  consider  another  point  in  this  question.  I 
hold  it  a  settled  truth  that  the  leaders  of  this  rebellion  can  never 
live  in  peace  in  this  republic.  I  do  not  say  it  in  any  spirit  of 
vindictiveness,  but  as  a  matter  of  conviction.  Ask  the  men  who 
have  seen  them  and  met  them  in  the  darkness  of  battle  and  all 
the  rigors  of  warfare :  they  will  tell  you  that  it  can  never  be.  I 
make,  of  course,  an  exception  in  favor  of  that  sad  array  of  men 
who  have  been  forced  or  cajoled  by  their  leaders  into  the  ranks 
and  subordinate  offices  of  the  rebel  army.  I  believe  a  truce 
could  be  struck  to-day  between  the  rank  and  file  of  the  hostile 
armies.  I  believe  they  could  meet  and  shake  hands  joyfully 
over  returning  peace,  each  respecting  the  courage  and  manhood 
of  the  other.  But  for  the  wicked  men  who  brought  on  this 
rebellion,  for  the  wicked  men  who  led  others  into  the  darkness, 
such  a  day  can  never  come.  Ask  the  representatives  of  Ken- 
tucky upon  this  floor,  who  know  what  the  rebellion  has  been  in 
their  State,  who  know  the  violence  and  devastation  that  have 
swept  over  it,  and  they  will  tell  you  that  all  over  that  State  neigh- 
bor has  been  slaughtered  by  neighbor,  feuds  fierce  as  human  hate 
can  make  them  have  sprung  up,  and  so  long  as  revenge  has  an 
arm  to  strike,  its  blows  will  never  cease  to  be  struck,  if  such  men 
come  back  to  dwell  where  they  dwelt  before.  This  is  true  of 
every  State  over  which  the  desolating  tide  of  war  has  swept.  If 
you  would  not  inaugurate  an  exterminating  warfare,  to  continue 
while  you  and  I  and  our  children  and  children's  children  live, 
set  it  down   at  once  that  the  leaders  of  this  rebellion  must  be 


14  CONFISCATION  OF  REBEL   PROPERTY. 

executed  or  banished  from  the  republic.     They  must  follow  the 
fate  of  the  Tories  of  the  Revolution. 

I  believe,  Mr.  Speaker,  that  the  army  is  a  unit  on  these  great 
questions ;  and  I  must  here  be  permitted  to  quote  from  one  of 
nature's  noblemen,  a  man  from  Virginia,  with  the  pride  of  the 
Old  Dominion  in  his  blood,  but  who  could  not  be  seduced 
from  his  patriotism,  —  one  who,  amid  the  storm  of  war  that 
surged  against  him  at  Chickamauga,  stood  firm  as  a  rock  in  the 
sea,  —  George  H.  Thomas.  That  man  wrote  a  communication 
to  the  Secretary  of  War  nearly  a  year  ago,  saying  in  substance, 
for  I  quote  from  memory :  "  I  send  you  the  enclosed  paper 
from  a  subordinate  officer;  I  endorse  its  sentiments,  and  I  will 
add,  that  we  can  never  make  solid  progress  against  the  rebellion 
until  we  take  more  sweeping  and  severe  measures;  we  must 
make  these  people  feel  the  rigors  of  war,  subsist  our  army  upon 
them,  and  leave  their  country  so  that  there  will  be  little  in  it  for 
them  to  desire."  Thus  spoke  a  man  who  is  very  far  from  being 
what  gentlemen  upon  the  other  side  of  the  House  are  pleased 
to  call  an  Abolitionist,  or  a  Northern  fanatic ;  and  in  saying  this, 
he  spoke  the  voice  of  the  army. 

Mr.  Speaker,  I  am  surprised  and  amazed  beyond  measure  at 
what  I  have  seen  in  this  House.  Having  been  so  long  with 
men  who  had  but  one  thought  upon  these  great  themes,  it  is 
passing  strange  to  me  to  hear  men  talking  of  the  old  issues  and 
discussions  of  four  years  ago.  They  forget  that  we  live  in 
actions  more  than  in  years.  They  forget  that  sometimes  a 
nation  may  live  a  generation  in  a  single  year;  that  the  experi- 
ence of  the  last  three  years  has  been  greater  than  that  of  centu- 
ries of  quiet  and  peace.  They  do  not  seem  to  realize  that  we 
are  at  war.  They  do  not  seem  to  realize  that  this  is  a  struggle 
for  existence, —  a  terrible  fight  of  flint  with  flint,  bayonet  with 
bayonet,  blood  for  blood.  They  still  retain  some  hope  that 
they  can  smile  rebellion  into  peace.  They  use  terms  strangely. 
In  these  modern  days  words  have  lost  their  significance.  If  a 
man  steals  his  thousands  from  the  Treasury,  he  is  not  a  thief; 
O,  no !  he  is  a  "  defaulter."  If  a  man  hangs  shackles  on  the 
limbs  of  a  human  being  and  drives  him  through  life  as  a  slave, 
it  is  not  man-stealing,  it  is  not  even  slavery ;  it  is  only  "  another 
form  of  civilization."  We  are  using  words  in  that  strange  way. 
There  are  public  journals  in  New  York  city,  I  am  told,  that 
never  call  this  a  rebellion,  —  it  is  only  a  "civil  commotion,"  a 


CONTFISCATION  OF  REBEL  PROPERTY.  15 

"fraternal  strife."  It  was  described  more  vigorously  in  this 
chamber  a  few  days  ago  as  **  an  inhuman  crusade  against  the 
South."  I  had  thought  the  day  of  "  Southern  brethren  *'  and 
•*  wayward  sisters  "  had  gone  by,  but  I  find  it  here  in  the  high 
noon  of  its  glory.  One  would  suppose  from  all  we  hear  that 
war  is  gentle  and  graceful  exercise,  to  be  indulged  in  in  a  quiet 
and  pleasant  manner.  I  have  lately  seen  a  stanza  from  the 
nursery  rhymes  of  England  which  I  commend  to  these  gentle- 
hearted  patriots  who  propose  to  put  down  the  rebellion  with 
soft  words  and  paper  resolutions :  — 

"  There  was  an  old  man  who  said.  How 
Shall  I  flee  from  this  horrible  cow  ? 
I  will  sit  on  the  stile 
And  continue  to  smile, 

Which  may  soften  the  heart  of  this  cow." 

• 

I  tell  you,  gentlemen,  the  heart  of  this  great  rebellion  cannot 
be  softened  by  smiles.  You  cannot  send  commissioners  to 
Richmond,  as  the  gentleman  from  New  York  ^  proposes,  to 
smile  away  the  horrible  facts  of  this  war.  Not  by  smiles,  but 
by  thundering  volleys,  must  this  rebellion  be  met,  and  by  such 
means  alone.  I  am  reminded  of  Macaulay's  paragraph  in 
regard  to  the  revolution  in  England :  — 

"  It  is  because  we  had  a  preserving  revolution  in  the  seventeenth  cen- 
tury that  we  have  not  had  a  destroying  revolution  in  the  nineteenth.  It 
is  because  we  had  freedom  in  the  midst  of  servitude  that  we  have  order 
in  the  midst  of  anarchy.  For  the  authority  of  law,  for  the  security  of 
property,  for  the  peace  of  our  streets,  for  the  happiness  of  our  homes, 
our  gratitude  is  due,  under  Him  who  raises  and  pulls  down  nations  at 
his  pleasure,  to  the  Long  Parliament,  to  the  Convention,  and  to  William 
of  Orange."  2 

Mr.  Speaker,  if  we  want  a  peace  that  is  not  a  hollow  peace, 
we  must  follow  that  example,  and  make  thorough  work  of  this 
war.  We  must  establish  freedom  in  the  midst  of  servitude,  and 
the  authority  of  law  in  the  midst  of  rebellion.  We  must  fill 
the  thinned  ranks  of  our  armies,  assure  them  that  a  grateful 
and  loving  people  are  behind  to  sanction  and  encourage  them, 
and  they  will  go  down  against  the  enemy  bearing  with  them 
the  majesty  and  might  of  a  great  nation.  We  must  follow  the 
march  of  the  army  with  a  free  and  loyal  population ;  we  must 

1  Mr.  Wood.  2  History  of  England,  Vol.  II.  p-  510  (Harper's  cd.,  1856). 


l6  CONFISCATION  OF  REBEL  PROPERTY. 

protect  that  population  by  the  strong  arm  of  military  power. 
The  war  was  announced  by  proclamation,  and  it  must  end  by 
proclamation.  We  can  hold  the  insurgent  States  in  military 
subjection  half  a  century  if  need  be,  until  they  are  purged  of 
their  poison,  and  stand  up  clean  before  the  country.  They 
must  come  back  with  clean  hands  if  they  come  at  all.  I  hope 
to  see  in  all  those  States  the  men  who  have  fought  and  suffered 
for  the  truth,  tilling  the  fields  on  which  they  pitched  their  tents. 
I  hope  to  see  them,  like  old  Kaspar  of  Blenheim,  on  the  sum- 
mer evenings,  with  their  children  upon  their  knees,  and  pointing 
out  the  spot  where  brave  men  fell  and  marble  commemorates  it. 
Let  no  breath  of  treason  be  whispered  there.  I  would  have  no 
man  there,  like  one  from  my  own  State,  who  came  to  the  army 
before  the  great  struggle  in  Georgia,  and  gave  us  his  views  of 
peace.  He  came  as  the  friend  of  Vallandigham,  the  man  for 
whom  the  gentlemen  on  the  other  side  of  the  House  from  my 
State  worked  and  voted.  We  were  on  the  eve  of  the  great 
battle.  I  said  to  him,  •*  You  wish  to  make  Mr.  Vallandigham 
Governor  of  Ohio.  Why?"  He  replied,  "Because,  in  the 
first  place,"  using  the  language  of  the  gentleman  from  New 
York,  "  you  cannot  subjugate  the  South,  and  we  propose  to 
withdraw  without  trying  it  Ipnger.  In  the  next  place,"  we  will 
have  nothing  to  do  with  this  Abolition  war,  nor  will  we  give 
another  man  or  another  dollar  for  its  support."  **  To-morrow," 
I  continued,  **  we  may  be  engaged  in  a  death-struggle  with  the 
rebel  army  that  confronts  us,  and  is  daily  increasing.  Where  is 
the  sympathy  of  your  party?  Do  you  want  us  beaten,  or  Bragg 
beaten?"  He  answered  that  they  had  no  interest  in  fighting, 
that  they  did  not  believe  in  fighting.  I  asked  him  further, 
"  How  would  it  affect  your  party  if  we  should  crush  the  rebels 
in  this  battle,  and  utterly  destroy  them  ?  "  "  We  would  probably 
lose  votes  by  it."  **  How  would  it  affect  your  party  if  we  should 
be  beaten?  "     **  It  would  probably  help  us  in  votes." 

That,  gentlemen,  is  the  kind  of  support  the  army  is  receiving 
in  what  should  be  the  house  of  its  friends.  That,  gentlemen,  is 
the  kind  of  support  these  men  are  inclined  to  give  this  country 
and  its  army  in  this  terrible  struggle.  I  hasten  to  make  honor- 
able exceptions.  I  know  there  are  honorable  gentlemen  on  the 
other  side  who  do  not  belong  to  that  category,  and  I  am  proud 
to  acknowledge  them  as  my  friends.  I  am  sure  they  do  not 
sympathize  with  these  efforts,  whose  tendency  is  to  pull  down  the 


CONFISCATION  OF  REBEL  PROPERTY,  17 

fabric  of  our  government  by  aiding  their  friends  over  the  border 
to  do  it.  Their  friends^  I  say ;  for  when  the  Ohio  election  was 
about  coming  off,  in  the  army  at  Chattanooga  there  was  more 
anxiety  in  the  rebel  camp  than  in  our  own.  The  pickets  had 
talked  face  to  face,  and  the  rebels  made  daily  inquiry  how  the 
election  in  Ohio  was  going.  And  at  midnight  of  the  13  th  of 
October,  when  the  telegraphic  news  was  flashed  down  to  us,  and 
it  was  announced  to  the  army  that  the  Union  had  sixty  thousand 
majority  in  Ohio,  there  arose  a  shout  from  every  tent  along  the 
line  on  that  rainy  midnight,  which  rent  the  skies  with  jubilees, 
and  sent  despair  to  the  heart  of  those  who  were  **  waiting  and 
watching  across  the  border."  It  told  them  that  their  colleagues, 
their  sympathizers,  their  friends,  I  had  almost  said  their  emissa- 
ries, at  the  North,  had  failed  to  sustain  themselves  in  turning  the 
tide  against  the  Union  and  its  army.  And  from  that  hour,  but 
not  till  that  hour,  the  army  felt  safe  from  the  enemy  behind  it. 
Thanks  to  the  1 3th  of  October !  It  told  thirteen  of  my  colleagues 
that  they  had  no  constituencies.  I  deprecate  these  apparently 
partisan  remarks;  it  hurts  me  to  make  them;  but  it  hurts  me 
more  to  know  that  they  are  true.  I  would  not  make  them  but 
that  I  wish  to  unmask  the  pretext  that  these  men  are  in  earnest, 
and  laboring  for  the  vigorous  prosecution  of  the  war  and  the 
maintenance  of  the  government.  I  cannot  easily  forget  the 
treatment  which  the  conscription  bill  received  this  morning.^ 
Even  the  few  men  in  the  army  who  voted  for  Vallandigham 
wrote  on  the  back  of  their  tickets,  **  Draft!  draft!  "  But  their 
representatives  here  think  otherwise. 

I  conclude  by  returning  once  more  to  the  resolution  before 
us.  Let  no  weak  sentiments  of  misplaced  sympathy  deter  us 
from  inaugurating  a  measure  which  will  cleanse  our  nation  and 
make  it  the  fit  home  of  freedom  and  a  glorious  manhood.  Let 
us  not  despise  the  severe  wisdom  of  our  Revolutionary  fathers 
when  they  served  their  generation  in  a  similar  way.  Let  the 
republic  drive  from  its  soil  the  traitors  that  have  conspired 
against  its  life,  as  God  and  his  angels  drove  Satan  and  his  host 
from  heaven.  He  was  not  too  merciful  to  be  just,  and  to  hurl 
down  in  chains  and  everlasting  darkness  the  "  traitor  angel " 
who  **  first  broke  peace  in  heaven,"  and  rebelled  against  Him. 

^  See  the  following  Speech,  on  "Enrolling and  Calling  out  the  National  Forces," 
June  25, 1864. 

VOL.  1.  2 


1 8  CONFISCATION  OF  REBEL  PROPERTY. 

On  the  9th  of  April,  1864,  in  reply  to  Mr.  Cox,  of  Ohio,  Mr.  Garfield 
made  these  remarks  :  — 

My  colleague  misrepresents  me  —  I  presume  unintentionally 
—  when  he  says  that  I  have,  on  two  occasions,  declared  my 
readiness  to  overleap  the  Constitution.  That  I  may  set  myself 
and  him  right  on  that  question,  I  will  say,  once  for  all,  that  I 
have  never  uttered  such  a  sentiment.  I  believe,  sir,  that  our 
fathers  erected  a  government  to  endure  forever;  that  they 
framed  a  Constitution  which  provided,  not  for  its  own  disso- 
lution, but  for  its  amendment  and  perpetuation.  I  believe  that 
that  Constitution  confers  on  the  executive  and  legislative  de- 
partments of  the  government  the  amplest  powers  to  protect 
and  defend  this  nation  against  all  its  enemies,  foreign  and  do- 
mestic ;  that  we  are  clothed  with  plenary  power  to  pursue  reb- 
els in  arms,  either  as  traitors,  to  be  convicted  in  the  courts  and 
executed  on  the  gallows,  or  as  public  enemies,  to  be  subjected 
to  the  laws  of  war  and  destroyed  on  the  battle-field.  We  are  at 
liberty  to  adopt  either  policy,  or  both,'  as  we  deem  most  expe- 
dient. But,  sir,  gentlemen  on  the  other  side  of  this  chamber 
profess  to  be  greatly  embarrassed  by  constitutional  restrictions. 
They  tell  us  that  the  Constitution  confers  upon  us  no  right  to 
coerce  a  rebellious  State ;  no  right  to  confiscate  the  property 
of  traitors ;  no  right  to  employ  black  men  in  the  military  ser- 
vice ;  no  right  to  suspend  the  writ  of  habeas  corpus  ;  no  right  to 
arrest  spies;  no  right  to  draft  citizens  to  fill  up  the  army;  in 
short,  no  right  to  do  anything  which  is  indispensably  necessary 
to  save  the  nation  and  the  Constitution.  It  was  in  answer  to 
such  claims  that  I  said,  in  substance,  if  all  these  things  were  so, 
I  would  fall  back  on  the  inalienable  right  of  self-preservation, 
and  overleap  the  barriers  of  the  Constitution ;  but  I  would  leap 
into  the  arms  of  a  willing  people,  who  made  the  Constitution, 
and  who  could,  in  the  day  of  dire  necessity,  make  other  weapons 
for  their  own  salvation.  The  nation  is  greater  than  the  work  of 
its  own  hands.  The  preservation  of  its  life  is  of  greater  mo- 
ment than  the  preservation  of  any  parchment,  however  replete 
with  human  wisdom.  I  desire  to  read  an  extract  from  an 
authority  which,  I  am  sure,  the  gentleman  will  acknowledge, 
Thomas  Jefferson.^  This  extract  states  more  ably  than  I  can 
the  very  doctrine  I  have  advocated. 

*  Here  Mr.  Garfield  read  from  a  letter  to  J.  B.  Colvin,  dated  September  20,  iSio^ 
which  may  be  found  in  Jefferson's  Works,  Vol.  V.  p.  542. 


ENROLLING  AND  CALLING  OUT  THE 

NATIONAL  FORCES. 

SPEECH  DELIVERED   IN  THE   HOUSE  OF  REPRESENTATIVES. 

June  25,  1864. 


The  first  call  for  troops  to  suppress  the  Southern  Rebellion  was  made 
on  April  15,  1861,  under  the  laws  authorizing  the  President  to  call  out 
the  militia  of  the  several  States  to  repel  invasion  and  to  suppress  insur- 
rection (especially  the  law. of  February  28,  1795).  July  22,  Congress 
authorized  the  President  to  accept  the  service  of  500,000  volunteers,  for 
a  period  not  exceeding  three  years  ;  and  shortly  after,  this  authorization 
was  duplicated.  Thus,  early  in  the  war  the  government  was  committed 
to  volunteering  as  the  means  of  filling  up  the  army.  To  stimulate  volun- 
teering, Congress  voted,  besides  pay  and  clothing,  a  bounty  of  ^loo  to 
each  volunteer  who  should  serve  two  years,  or  during  the  war  if  sooner 
ended.  As  the  war  went  on,  additional  inducements  were  offered,  some- 
times by  law  and  sometimes  by  order  of  the  War  Department.  A  short 
step  towards  putting  the  military  power  of  the  republic  more  fully  at  the 
disposal  of  the  government  was  taken  in  the  act  of  July  17,  1862,  which 
gave  the  President  fuller  control  of  the  militia  of  the  States.  August  4  of 
the  same  year,  the  President  called  for  300,000  militia  for  nine  months, 
and  directed  that  the  States  should  be  drafted  to  fill  up  their  quotas  if 
necessary.  March  3,  1863,  the  first  Enrolment  Act  was  passed.  This 
gave  the  President  power  to  draft,  but  several  classes  of  able-bodied 
male  citizens  were  exempted,  and  the  drafted  persons  had  the  option 
of  serving,  furnishing  an  accepted  substitute,  or  paying  a  commutation 
authorized  by  the  Secretary  of  War,  not  to  exceed  J300,  for  the  procu- 
ration of  a  substitute.  October  17,  1863,  300,000  men  were  called  for 
under  this  act.  On  the  ist  of  February,  1864,  a  further  draft  of  500,000 
men  was  ordered  ;  March  14,  another  draft  for  200,000.  The  frequency 
of  these  calls,  as  well  as  the  large  number  of  men  called  for  in  the  suc- 
cessive proclamations,  is  explained  in  great  degree  by  the  looseness  of 
the  act  of  March  3,  1 863,  according  to  which  large  numbers  of  men  com- 
petent for  military  service  were  exempted,  and  according  to  wliich  those 


20         CALLING   OUT  THE  NATIONAL  FORCES, 

actually  drafted  could  avoid  the  service  by  payment  of  the  commu- 
tation. Practically,  that  law  tended  to  fill  the  treasury  rather  than  the 
army;  and  it  was  called  a  financial  rather  than  a  military  measure. 
Its  operation  was  well  explained  by  Mr.  Garfield  in  some  remarks  made 
on  February  3,  1864  :  — 

"  I  wish  to  call  the  attention  of  the  committee  —  and  if  I  could  I 
would  address  my  remarks  only  to  those  who  are  in  favor  of  an  effective 
conscription  bill  of  some  sort  —  to  some  facts  in  relation  to  the  opera- 
tion of  the  existing  law.  I  will  state  in  a  few  sentences  the  direct  results 
of  that  law,  so  far  as  it  has  been  enforced. 

"  On  the  14th  day  of  December  last,  there  had  been  drawn  from  the 
wheel  in  the  late  draft  290,000  names.  Of  these,  73,000  were  exempted 
in  consequence  of  disability,  and  74,000  for  other  reasons,  as  laid  down 
in  the  second  section  of  the  present  conscription  law;  41,000  paid  com- 
mutation ;  24,000  furnished  substitutes ;  and  1 1 ,000  went  to  the  field. 
Several  thousand  more  were  thrown  out  as  having  been  improperly  en- 
rolled. Therefore  it  will  be  seen  that,  out  of  290,000  names  drawn  from 
the  wheel,  the  government  got  11,000  men  who  went  themselves,  and 
24,000  who  went  as  substitutes.  Look  at  the  result :  290,000  men 
placed  out  of  the  enrolment  list  for  three  years  to  come,  of  whom  only 
1 1,000  are  in  the  army!  How  many  men  would  you  get  at  that  rate 
fi-om  the  entire  enrolment  list  of  three  million?  If  the  entire  number 
were  drafted  to-morrow  under  the  present  law,  you  would  get  350,000 
men,  and  then  you  have  pledged  the  faith  of  the  government  that  for 
three  years  to  come  not  another  man  in  the  United  States  shall  be  com- 
pelled to  enter  the  military  service.  That  would  be  the  effect  of  the 
present  law  if  executed  in  full  to-morrow.  I  say  again,  that  under  that 
law  you  can  obtain  but  350,000  men  by  substitute  and  by  draft,  and 
then  you  will  have  forsworn  yourselves  against  calling  for  another  man  in 
the  United  States  for  the  army  by  any  compulsory  process." 

The  speculative  spirit  engendered  by  the  inflation  of  the  currency 
and  the  prodigal  expenditures  of  the  war  was  nowhere  more  prominent 
than  in  the  business  of  recruiting.  Congress  fostered  this  spirit  by  voting 
liberal  bounties,  and  the  War  Department  outran  Congress  by  offering 
bounties  without  the  authority  of  law.  In  the  mean  time  Congress  was 
struggling  with  the  difficulties  of  the  situation. \  December  3,  1863,  it 
was  provided  by  joint  resolution,  "  That  no  bounties,  except  such  as  are 
now  provided  by  law,  shall  be  paid  to  any  persons  enlisting  after  the  fifth 
day  of  January  next."  But  in  the  same  resolution  money  was  voted  to 
pay  the  unauthorized  bounties  up  to  that  time.  Then,  a  few  days  later, 
by  joint  resolution  (approved  January  13,  1864)  it  was  voted  to  extend 
the  time  for  which  these  high  bounties  shall  be  paid  to  the  first  day 
of  March.  Mr.  Garfield's  was  one  of  the  two  votes  cast  in  the  House 
against  this  resolution.     He  thus  explained  his  vote  :  — 


CALLING   OUT  THE  NATIONAL  FORCES.         21 

"  The  request  of  the  President  and  the  War  Department  was  to  con- 
tinue the  payment  of  bounties  until  the  ist  of  February  next ;  but  the 
resolution  before  the  House  proposes  to  extend  the  payment  until  the 
I  St  of  March.  And  while  the  President  asks  us  to  continue  the  payment 
of  bounties  to  veteran  volunteers  only,  this  resolution  extends  it  to  all 
volunteers,  whether  veterans  or  raw  recruits.  If  the  resolution  prevails, 
it  seems  to  me  we  shall  swamp  the  finances  of  the  government  before 
the  I  St  of  March  arrives.  I  cannot  consent  to  vote  for  a  measure  which 
authorizes  the  expenditure  of  so  vast  a  sum  as  will  be  expended  under 
this  resolution,  unless  it  be  shown  absolutely  indispensable  to  the  work 
of  filling  up  the  army.  I  am  anxious  that  veterans  shall  volunteer,  and 
that  bounties  be  paid  to  them.  But  if  we  extend  the  payment  to  all 
classes  of  volunteers  for  two  months  to  come,  I  fear  we  shall  swamp  the 
government.  Before  I  vote  for  this  resolution,  I  desire  to  know  whether 
the  government  is  determined  to  abandon  the  draft.  If  it  be  its  policy 
to  raise  an  army  solely  by  volunteering  and  paying  bounties,  we  have 
one  line  of  policy  to  pursue.  If  the  conscription  law  is  to  be  anything 
better  than  a  dead  letter  on  the  statute-book,  our  line  of  policy  is  a  very 

different  one I  am  sorry  to  see  in  tliis  resolution  the  indication 

of  a  timid  and  vacillating  course.  It  is  unworthy  the  dignity  of  our 
government  and  our  army  to  use  the  conscription  act  as  a  scarecrow, 
and  the  bounty  system  as  a  bait,  alternately  to  scare  and  coax  men  into 
the  army.  Let  us  give  liberal  bounties  to  veteran  soldiers  who  may 
re-enlist,  and  for  raw  recruits  use  the  draft." 

A  law  approved  on  February  24,  1864,  greatly  reduced  the  exemp- 
tions made  by  the  law  of  March,  1863,  and  narrowed  the  commutation 
clause ;  but  still  failed  to  meet  the  emergency.  While  Congress  was 
thus  halting  between  two  opinions,  and  the  army  was  on  the  point  of 
serious  reduction  through  the  expiration  of  enlistments,  President  Lin- 
coln himself  went  before  the  House  Military  Committee  and  stated  the 
pressing  necessity  for  men  to  take  the  places  of  those  whose  enlistments 
would  soon  expire.  He  asked  for  legal  power  to  draft  men  to  fill  the 
ranks.  A  bill  embodying  these  more  positive  ideas  was  introduced  into 
the  House  by  Mr.  Schenck  of  Ohio,  June  13,  1864.  The  House  still 
hesitated,  and  amendments  emasculating  the  bill  were  promptly  carried. 
Mr.  Garfield  protested  that  the  government  was  in  want  of  men,  and  not 
of  money ;  that  the  existing  law  had,  in  the  main,  failed  to  secure  the 
requisite  reinforcements ;  that  the  commutation  clause  of  the  enrolment 
act  could  not  be  retained,  and  the  army  be  filled  up  at  the  same  time. 
"This  Congress,"  said  he,  "must  sooner  or  later  meet  the  issue  face  to 
face,  and  I  beheve  the  time  will  soon  come,  if  it  has  not  now  come, 
when  we  nuist  give  up  the  war  or  give  up  the  commutation.  I  believe 
the  men  and  the  Congress  that  shall  finally  refuse  to  strike  out  the  com- 
mutation clause,  but  retain  it  in  its  full  force  as  it  now  is,  will  sub- 


22         CALLING   OUT  THE  NATIONAL  FORCES. 

stantially  vote  to  abandon  the  war.  And  I  am  not  ready  to  believe, 
I  will  not  believe,  that  the  Thirty-eighth  Congress  has  come  to  such  a 
conclusion." 

Better  counsels  finally  prevailed.  Without  following  the  bill  of  June  13 
through  its  devious  history,  it  suffices  to  say  that  at  the  very  end  of  the 
session  an  efficient  law  passed,  bearing  the  tide,  "An  Act  further  to 
regulate  and  provide  for  the  enrolling  and  calling  out  the  National 
Forces,  and  for  other  Purposes,"  and  was  approved  July  4,  1864. 
Pending  this  bill,  Mr.  Garfield  delivered  the  following  speech. 


MR.  SPEAKER,  —  The  honorable  gentleman*  who  has  just 
taken  his  seat  has  seen  fit  to  refer  to  a  remark  which 
I  made  on  the  last  occasion  when  the  proposed  repeal  of  the 
commutation  clause  was  before  the  House.  I  do  not  think  he 
intended  to  misrepresent  me,  yet  he  did  so.  I  did  not  take  it 
upon  myself  to  criticise  the  individual  acts  or  votes  of  any  mem- 
ber of  this  House.  But,  sir,  it  is  my  right  to  animadvert  upon 
the  action  of  this  House  and  the  effects  of  its  policy.  This  right 
I  have  hitherto  used  in  such  manner  as  I  deemed  proper,  and 
while  I  have  the  honor  of  a  seat  in  this  body  I  shall  continue  to 
use  it.  On  that  occasion  I  did,  as  the  gentleman  states,  declare 
it  as  my  opinion  that  we  had  reached  a  point  in  the  progress  of 
events  where  we  must  decide,  to  repeal  the  commutation  clause 
or  give  up  the  successful  prosecution  of  the  war.  I  did  not 
then  believe,  nor  do  I  now  believe,  that  the  vote  then  taken 
was  such  a  decision ;  but  I  did  believe,  and  I  yet  believe,  that 
if  the  policy  indicated  by  that  vote  shall  be  persisted  in,  if  the 
commutation  clause  be  permanently  retained  in  the  law,  if 
no  more  efficient  law  be  passed  this  session  for  filling  up  our 
armies  and  supplying  the  waste  of  battle  and  disease,  the  rebel- 
lion cannot  be  put  down  during  the  lifetime  of  the  Thirty-eighth 
Congress.  I  go  further.  If  this  Congress  shall  leave  the  law 
as  it  now  stands,  and  the  next  Congress  repeats  the  folly,  I  do 
not  believe  the  rebellion  will  be  put  down  during  the  continu- 
ance of  the  next  Congress,  nor  at  all  while  the  incubus  of  com- 
mutation weighs  down  the  present  law.  In  my  judgment,  that 
clause  stands  directly  in  the  way  of  filling  up  our  armies. 

Mr.  Speaker,  it  has  never  been  my  policy  to  conceal  a  truth 
merely  because  it  is  unpleasant.     It  may  be  well  to  smile  in  the 

1  Mr.  Odell,  of  New  York. 


CALLING   OUT  THE  NATIONAL   FORCES.         23 

face  of  danger,  but  it  is  neither  well  nor  wise  to  let  danger 
approach  unchallenged  and  unannounced.  A  brave  nation,  like 
a  brave  man,  desires  to  see  and  measure  the  perils  which  threaten 
it  It  is  the  right  of  the  American  people  to  know  the  neces- 
sities of  the  republic  when  they  are  called  upon  to  make  sacri- 
fices for  it  It  is  this  lack  of  confidence  in  ourselves  and  the 
people,  this  timid  waiting  for  events  to  control  us  when  they 
should  obey  us,  that  makes  men  oscillate  between  hope  and 
fear,  —  now  in  the  sunshine  of  the  hilltops,  and  now  in  the 
gloom  and  shadows  of  the  valley.  To  such  men  the  morning 
bulletin  which  heralds  success  in  the  army  gives  exultation  and 
high  hope ;  the  evening  despatch  announcing  some  slight  dis- 
aster to  our  advancing  columns  brings  gloom  and  depression. 
Hope  rises  and  falls  by  the  accidents  of  war,  as  the  mercury  of 
the  thermometer  changes  by  the  accidents  of  heat  and  cold. 
Let  us  rather  take  for  our  symbol  the  sailor's  barometer,  which 
faithfully  forewarns  him  of  the  tempest,  and  gives  him  unerring 
promise  of  serene  skies  and  peaceful  seas. 

No  man  can  deny  that  we  have  grounds  for  apprehension  and 
anxiety.  The  unexampled  magnitude  of  the  contest,  the  enor- 
mous expenditures  of  the  war,  the  unprecedented  waste  of  battle, 
bringing  sorrow  to  every  loyal  fireside,  the  courage,  endurance, 
and  desperation  of  our  enemy,  the  sympathy  given  him  by  the 
monarchies  of  the  Old  World  as  they  wait  and  hope  for  our  de- 
struction, —  all  these  considerations  should  make  us  anxious  and 
earnest ;  but  they  should  not  add  one  hue  of  despair  to  the  face 
of  an  American  citizen,  —  they  should  not  abate  a  tittle  of  his 
heart  and  hope.  The  spectres  of  defeat,  bankruptcy,  and  repu- 
diation have  stalked  through  this  chamber,  evoked  by  those 
gentlemen  who  see  no  hope  for  the  republic  in  the  arbitra- 
ment of  war,  no  power  in  the  justice  of  our  cause,  no  peace 
made  secure  by  the  triumph  of  freedom  and  truth. 

Mr.  Speaker,  even  at  this  late  day  of  the  session,  I  will  beg 
the  indulgence  of  the  House  while  I  point  out  some  of  the 
grounds  of  our  confidence  in  the  final  success  of  our  cause, 
while  I  endeavor  to  show  that,  though  beset  with  danger,  we 
still  stand  on  firm  ground,  and  though  the  heavens  are  clouded, 
yet  above  storm  and  cloud  the  sun  of  our  national  hope  shines 
with  steady  and  undimmed  splendor.  History  is  constantly 
repeating  itself,  making  only  such  changes  of  programme  as 
the  growth  of  nations  and  centuries  requires.     Such  struggles 


24         CALLING   OUT  THE  NATIONAL  FORCES. 

as  ours,  and  far  greater  ones,  have  occurred  in  other  ages,  and 
their  records  are  written  for  us.  I  desire  to  refer  to  the  exam- 
ple of  our  kindred  across  the  sea,  in  their  great  struggles  at  the 
close  of  the  last  and  the  beginning  of  the  present  century,  to 
show  what  a  brave  nation  can  do  when  their  liberties  are  in  dan- 
ger and  their  national  existence  is  at  stake. 

There  were  two  periods  in  the  history  of  that  contest  when 
England  saw  darker  days  than  any  that  we  have  seen,  or,  I 
hope,  ever  shall  see.  Consider  her  condition  in  1797.  For  ten 
years  the  tide  of  mad  revolution  had  been  sweeping  over  Europe 
like  a  destroying  pestilence,  demolishing  thrones  and  principali- 
ties ;  and,  while  many  evils  were  swept  away,  chaos  and  anarchy 
were  left  in  its  track.  In  1792  France  declared  war  against  the 
world;  and  in  February,  1793,  specifically  declared  war  against 
England.  At  that  time  the  British  debt  was  $1,268,668,045, 
and  its  annual  interest  $45,225,304.  The  population  of  the 
United  Kingdom  was  less  than  twelve  millions,  including  Ire- 
land, — Ireland  then,  as  now,  "  the  tear  in  the  eye  of  Great  Brit- 
ain,"—  a  source  of  weakness  rather  than  strength.  The  spirit 
of  revolution  pervaded  the  kingdom  from  collieries  to  court. 
The  throne  distrusted  the  people,  and  the  people  were  jealous 
of' the  throne.  In  1794  the  Habeas  Corpus  Act  was  suspended, 
against  an  opposition  in  Parliament  more  determined  and  far 
abler  than  its  suspension  met  in  our  Congress  two  years  ago. 
In  1796  three  and  a  quarter  million  Catholics  in  Ireland  were 
organized  to  revolt  against  the  government,  to  be  aided  by  a 
French  fleet  of  forty  sail,  with  twenty-five  thousand  French  sol- 
diers on  board.  But  for  the  storm  which  dispersed  the  fleet,  the 
revolt  must  have  been  successful.  In  the  same  year  the  naval 
power  of  England  was  threatened  with  dissolution  by  a  wide- 
spread mutiny  in  the  fleet.  Ship  after  ship  deserted  the  fleet 
•off"  Cadiz  and  in  the  North  Sea.  The  Channel  fleet  ran  up  the 
red  flag  of  mutiny  from  almost  every  masthead,  and  was  drawn 
up  in  line  of  battle  across  the  mouth  of  the  Thames,  prepared 
to  sail  to  London  if  the  demands  of  the  mutineers  were  not 
acceded  to.  It  required  all  the  firmness  of  the  king  and  his 
government  to  save  the  city  and  the  navy.  In  1797,  oppressed 
with  financial  disaster,  the  Bank  of  England  suspended  specie 
payments,  and  paper  money  (an  immense  circulation  of  which 
crowded  the  country)  was  the  legal  currency  for  twenty-two 
years  thereafter.    In  that  fifth  year  of  the  war,  as  Alison  says,  — 


CALLING   OUT  THE  NATIONAL  FORCES.         25 

"  Everything  seemed  to  be  falling  at  once.  Their  armies  had  been 
defeated,  the  Bank  had  suspended  payment,  and  now  the  fleet,  the  pride 
and  glory  of  England,  appeared  on  the  point  of  deserting  the  national 

colors The  public  creditors  apprehended  the  speedy  dissolution 

of  government,  and  the  cessation  of  their  wonted  payments  from  the 
treasury.  Despair  seized  upon  the  boldest  hearts ;  and  such  was  the 
genera]  panic  that  the  three  per  cents  were  sold  as  low  as  forty-five,  after 
having  been  nearly  one  hundred  before  the  commencement  of  the  war. 
Never  during  .the  whole  contest  had  the  consternation  been  so  great^  and 
never  was  Britain  placed  so  near  the  verge  of  ruin."  ^ 

All  this  time  France,  with  frenzied  activity  and  enormous 
power,  was  dealing  her  deadly  blows.  In  Parliament  the  great 
Fox  was  leading  a  powerful  opposition  against  the  government. 
The  record  of  English  divisions  would  answer  for  our  own. 
Alison  says :  — 

"  So  violent  had  party  spirit  become,  and  so  completely  had  it  usurped 
the  place  of  patriotism  or  reason,  that  many  of  the  popular  leaders  had 
come  to  wish  anxiously  for  the  triumph  of  their  enemies.  It  was  no 
longer  a  simple  disapprobation  of  the  war  which  they  felt,  but  a  fervent 
desire  that  it  might  terminate  to  the  disadvantage  of  their  country,  and 
that  the  Republican  might  triumph  over  the  British  arms.  They  thought 
that  there  was  no  chance  of  Parliamentary  reform  being  carried,  or  any 
considerable  addition  to  democratic  power  acquired,  unless  the  ministry 
were  dispossfeed,  and,  to  accomplish  this  object,  they  hesitated  not  to 
betray  their  wish  for  the  success  of  the  inveterate  enemy  of  their  country. 
These  animosities  produced  their  usual  effect  of  rendering  the  moderate  or 
rational  equally  odious  to  both  parties ;  whoever  deplored  the  war  was  re- 
puted a  foe  to  his  country ;  whoever  pronounced  it  necessary  was  deemed 
a  conspirator  against  its  liberty,  and  an  abettor  of  arbitrary  power."  ^ 

Against  such  an  opposition  and  such  discouragements,  the 
like  of  which  we  have  not  yet  seen,  England,  with  a  brave  king, 
a  wise  ministry,  and  a  courageous  Parliament,  rose  to  the  level 
of  the  great  occasion,  passed  laws  both  for  volunteering  and 
draft,  filled  the  ranks  of  her  army  and  navy  to  more  than  three 
hundred  and  fifty  thousand  men,  poured  out  her  wealth  with  a 
lavish  hand,  renewed  the  great  contest,  and  continued  it,  not 
four  years,  but  five  times  four  years  longer. 

But  England  saw  darker  days  than  those  of  1797.  In  the 
beginning  of    181 2  Napoleon  had  risen  to  the  height  of  his 

*  History  of  Europe,  ist  ser.,  Vol.  IV.  p.  236  (Edinburgh  and  London,  i860). 
«  Ibid..  Vol.  IV.  p.  141. 


26         CALLING   OUT  THE  NATIONAL  FORCES. 

marvellous  power.  The  continent  of  Europe  was  at  his  feet. 
By  victorious  diplomacy  and  still  more  victorious  war  he  had 
founded  an  empire  which  seemed  to  defy  human  power  success- 
fully to  assail  it.  Every  coalition  against  him  had  been  broken, 
every  alliance  had  failed.  More  than  half  the  nations  of  Europe 
followed  his  conquering  eagles.  From  the  Vistula  to  the  pillars 
of  Hercules,  except  the  rocky  triangle  of  the  Torres -Vedras, 
where  Wellington  was  held  at  bay  by  five  times  his  number 
under  a  great  Marshal  of  France,  the  Continent  presented  an 
unbroken  front  against  England.  Russia  remained  in  frozen 
isolation,  a  spectator  of  the  contest.  Only  Prussia  and  Austria 
followed  the  lead  of  England.  Let  us  consider  her  condition  at 
this  second  crisis  of  her  fate. 

Her  population,  including  Ireland,  was  about  seventeen  millions. 
Her  debt  had  been  more  than  trebled  since  the  beginning  of  the 
war,  and  now  reached  the  enormous  sum  of  $4,ocx),ooo,ooo. 
Specie  payments  being  still  suspended,  her  paper  currency  was 
more  than  ever  expanded.  In  the  beginning  of  the  war,  she 
raised  from  her  mines  and  coined  about  $30,ooo,ocx)  in  gold. 
But  the  revolution  which  swept  over  South  America  had  stopped 
the  working  of  the  mines,  so  that  before  the  close  of  the  war 
the  annual  British  coinage  was  less  than  $12,000,000.  Her  navy 
was  crippled  by  the  war,  her  commerce  ruined  by  the  French 
Decrees  and  the  Non-importation  Act  of  the  United  States. 
Her  imports  exceeded  her  exports  by  $65,000,000,  and  the 
balance  was  paid  in  gold.  For  two  years  her  harvests  had 
failed,  and  in  1 812  she  paid  $21,000,000  in  gold  for  foreign 
grain  to  feed  her  people.  In  that  year  alone  her  exports  de- 
clined $140,000,000.  The  heavy  subsidies  to  her  allies  and  the 
payments  to  her  own  armies  on  the  Continent  were  in  gold. 
In  1 81 2  she  sent  $30,000,000  in  gold,  for  which  she  paid  thirty 
per  cent  premium,  to  Wellington's  army  in  the  Peninsula.  Her 
bonds  had  so  depreciated  that  a  loan  of  ;^6o  increased  her  debt 
;^ioo.  A  short  time  previous,  in  the  midst  of  increasing  dis- 
aster, the  reason  of  the  king  gave  way,  and  he  sat  a  lunatic  on 
the  throne  of  a  kingdom  which  seemed  ready  to  go  down  with 
him  in  the  general  ruin.  This  event  added  a  new  and  compli- 
cated question  to  the  distractions  of  Parliament,  and  gave  a  new 
weapon  to  the  opposition. 

It  is  not  necessary  for  my  present  purpose  to  inquire  whether 
justice  leaned  to  the  side  of  England  or  her  adversary.     It  is 


CALLING   OUT  THE  NATIONAL  FORCES.         27 

enough  to  know  that  she  believed  it  was  on  her  part  a  struggle 
for  self-existence  and  for  the  constitutional  liberty  of  the  world. 
Inspired  with  this  conviction,  she  stood  like  a  giant  at  bay ;  in 
high  debate  she  reasserted  the  justice  of  her  cause,  summoned 
anew,  not  the  frantic  energy  of  despair,  but  the  inexhaustible 
reserve  of  calm  Anglo-Saxon  courage,  the  unfathomed  resources 
of  English  faith  and  English  pluck  (a  proud  share  of  which  I 
trust  this  nation  has  inherited),  and  in  the  face  of  unexampled 
discouragement  and  appalling  disaster,  laying  under  contribu- 
tion all  the  resources  of  her  realm,  went  out  again  to  meet  the 
man  of  destiny,  whose  victories  were  numbered  by  hundreds, 
and  whose  eagles  were  followed  by  half  the  world.  Increasing 
both  taxes  and  loans,  she  raised  and  expended  for  that  year 
$550,ooo,ocx).  She  filled  her  navy  to  one  hundred  and  twenty- 
five  thousand  men,  and  before  the  year  had  ended  six  hundred 
and  forty-eight  thousand  men  were  arrayed  under  her  banners. 
Seconded  by  the  indomitable  spirit  of  her  people,  her  armies 
emerged  from  the  gloom  of  that  nineteenth  year  of  the  war, 
and,  marching  with  unfaltering  step  through  three  more  bloody 
years  and  the  carnage  of  Waterloo,  she  planted  her  victorious 
standards  on  the  battlements  of  Paris,  and  gave  peace  to 
Europe. 

And  can  we,  the  descendants  of  such  a  people,  with  such  a 
history  and  such  an  example  before  us,  —  can  we,  dare  we,  falter 
in  a  day  like  this?  Dare  we  doubt?  Should  we  not  rather  say, 
as  Bolingbroke  said  to  his  people  in  their  hour  of  peril:  **  Oh, 
woe  to  thee  when  doubt  comes !  it  blows  like  a  wind  from  the 
north,  and  makes  all  thy  joints  to  quake.  Woe,  indeed,  be  to 
the  statesmen  who  doubt  the  strength  of  their  country,  and 
stand  in  awe  of  the  enemy  with  whom  it  is  engaged  !  '* 

At  the  same  period,  one  of  the  greatest  minds  of  England  de- 
clared that  three  things  were  necessary  to  her  success :  — 

1.  To  listen  to  no  terms  of  peace  till  freedom  and  order  were 
established  in  Europe. 

2.  To  fill  up  her  army  and  perfect  its  organization. 

3.  To  secure  the  favor  of  Heaven  by  putting  away  forever  the 
crime  of  slavery  and  the  slave  trade. 

Can  we  learn  a  better  lesson?  Great  Britain  in  that  same 
period  began  the  work  which  ended  in  breaking  the  fetters  of 
all  her  bondmen.  She  did  maintain  her  armies  and  her  finances, 
and  she  did  triumph.     We  have  begun  to  secure  the  approval 


28         CALLING   OUT  THE  NATIONAL  FORCES. 

of  Heaven  by  doing  justice,  though  long  delayed,  and  securing 
to  every  human  being  in  this  republic  freedom  henceforth  and 
forever. 

Mr.  Speaker,  it  has  long  been  my  settled  conviction  that  it 
was  a  part  of  the  Divine  purpose  to  keep  us  under  the  pressure 
and  grief  of  this  war  until  the  conscience  of  the  nation  should 
be  aroused  to  the  enormity  of  its  great  crime  against  the  black 
man,  and  full  reparation  should  be  made.  We  entered  the 
struggle,  a  large  majority  insisting  that  slavery  should  be  let 
alone,  with  a  defiance  almost  blasphemous.  Every  movement 
toward  the  recognition  of  the  negro's  manhood  was  resisted. 
Slowly,  and  at  a  frightful  cost  of  precious  lives,  the  nation  has 
yielded  its  wicked  and  stubborn  prejudices  against  him,  till  at 
last  blue  coats  cover  more  than  one  hundred  thousand  swarthy 
breasts,  and  the  national  banner  is  borne  in  the  smoke  of  battle 
by  men  lately  loaded  with  chains,  but  now  bearing  the  honors 
and  emoluments  of  American  soldiers.  Dare  we  hope  for  final 
success  till  we  give  them  the  full  protection  of  soldiers?  Like 
the  sins  of  mankind  against  God,  the  sin  of  slavery  is  so  great 
that  "  without  the  shedding  of  blood  there  is  no  remission." 
Shall  we  not  secure  the  favor  of  Heaven  by  putting  it  com- 
pletely away? 

Shall  we  not  fill  up  our  armies?  Shall  we  not  also  triumph? 
Was  there  in  the  condition  of  England  in  1812  a  single  element 
essential  to  success  which  we  do  not  possess  tc-day?  Observe 
the  contrast.  Her  population  was  less  than  seventeen  millions; 
ours  is  twenty-five  millions  in  the  loyal  States  alone.  Her  debt 
was  more  than  $4,000,000,000,  its  annual  interest  $161,000,000; 
our  debt  is  $1,720,000,000,  and  its  annual  interest  $71,000,000. 
The  balance  of  trade  was  $65,000,000  against  her;  in  1863  the 
balance  was  $79,621,872  in  our  favor.  She  bought  grain  from 
foreign  nations  to  feed  her  people ;  we  feed  our  own,  and  send 
an  immense  surplus  to  foreign  markets.  Her  mines  yielded  her 
twelve  or  fifteen  millions  of  bullion  annually;  ours  are  now 
yielding  $120,000,000  a  year.  More  than  half  of  all  her  pay- 
ments were  made  in  coin  purchased  at  a  heavy  premium ;  we  pay 
nothing  in  coin  but  $50,000,000  of  our  interest,  and  the  salaries 
of  our  ministers  and  consuls  abroad.  She  crossed  the  sea  to 
meet  her  enemy  on  foreign  soil ;  we  meet  ours  on  our  own  soil, 
in  a  country  that  has  been  ours  since  the  foundation  of  the 
republic.     She  fought  to  maintain  her  rank  among  the  nations 


CALLING   OUT  THE  NATIONAL  FORCES.         29 

of  Europe;  we  fight  to  maintain  our  existence  among  the 
nations  of  the  earth,  and  to  preserve  liberty  and  union  for 
ourselves  and  our  children's  children. 

If  the  example  of  England  fails  to  inspire  us,  let  us  not,  I  be- 
seech you,  forget  our  fathers  of  the  Revolution.  We  have  seen 
no  day  so  dark  as  were  whole  years  in  their  struggle.  We  have 
seen  no  captures  of  Philadelphia,  no  winter  quarters  at  Morris- 
town,  no  blood-stained  snow  at  Valley  Forge.  Out  of  a  popu- 
lation of  three  millions,  one  quarter  of  whom  adhered  to  the 
enemy,  they  sent  to  the  field  395,892  men,  —  one  for  every 
seven  women  and  children  in  the  States.  Were  we  to  double 
our  armies  to-day,  we  should  still  fall  far  behind  that  propor- 
tion. Who  can  compare  our  resources  with  theirs,  and  not 
blush  at  the  mention  of  failure,  the  suggestion  of  defeat?  Do 
we,  with  power  almost  unlimited,  with  resources  as  yet  un- 
touched, the  balance  of  trade  in  our  favor,  every  branch  of 
industry  flourishing,  and  everything  in  its  proper  place  except 
the  Congress  of  the  United  States,  —  do  we  talk  gloomily  of 
the  issue  of  this  contest?  I  believe,  sir,  that  the  worth  and 
manhood  of  a  nation  must  be  tried  by  the  same  standard  that 
tests  the  worth  and  manhood  of  individual  men.  We  can  never 
know  what  stuff  a  man  is  made  of  till  we  see  him  brought  face 
to  face  with  some  desperate  issue,  some  crisis  of  his  life  in 
which  he  must  peril  all  in  one  noble  effort,  or  shrink  ignobly 
away  into  the  coward's  oblivion.  If,  summoning  all  his  untried 
mankood,  and  flinging  into  the  scale  his  honor,  his  fortune,  and 
his  life,  he  goes  down  to  the  trial,  we  know  that  to  him  "  there  's 
no  such  word  as  fail."  So,  sir,  a  nation  is  not  worthy  to  be 
saved  if,  in  the  hour  of  its  fate,  it  will  not  gather  up  all  its 
jewels  of  manhood  and  life,  and  go  down  into  the  conflict,  how- 
ever bloody  and  doubtful,  resolved  on  measureless  ruin  or 
complete  success. 

"  Si  fractus  illabatur  orbis, 
Impavidum  fericnt  ruinae." 

But  no  ruin  awaits  such  a  nation.  The  American  people 
have  not  yet  risen  to  "the  height  of  the  great  argument,"  nor 
will  they  until  those  who  represent  them  here  are  ready  with 
unselfish  devotion  to  walk  in   the    rugged  path  that  leads  to 

victory. 

If  we  will  not  learn  a  lesson  from  either  England  or  our  Rev- 
olutionary fathers,  let  us  at  least  learn  from  our  enemies.     I  have 


30         CALLING   OUT  THE  NATIONAL  FORCES. 

seen  their  gallantry  in  battle,  their  hoping  against  hope  amid 
increasing  disaster;  and,  traitors  though  they  are,  I  am  proud 
of  their  splendid  courage  when  I  remember  that  they  are 
Americans.  Our  army  is  equally  brave,  but  our  government 
and  Congress  are  far  behind  theirs  in  earnestness  and  energy. 
Until  we  go  into  war  with  the  same  desperation  and  abandon- 
ment which  mark  their  course,  we  do  not  deserve  to  succeed, 
and  we  shall  not  succeed.  What  have  they  done  ?  What  has 
their  government  done,  —  a  government  based,  in  the  first 
place,  on  extreme  State  rights  and  State  sovereignty,  but  which 
has  become  more  centralized  and  despotic  than  the  monarchies 
of  Europe?  They  have  not  only  called  for  volunteers,  but  they 
have  drafted.  They  have  not  only  drafted,  but  cut  off  both 
commutation  and  substitution.  They  have  gone  further.  They 
have  adopted  conscription  proper,  —  the  old  French  conscrip- 
tion of  1797,  —  and  have  declared  that  every  man  between 
sixteen  and  sixty  years  of  age  is  a  soldier.  But  we  stand  here 
bartering  money  for  blood,  debating  whether  we  will  fight  the 
enemies  of  the  nation  or  pay  three  hundred  dollars  into  its 
treasury. 

Mr.  Speaker,  with  this  brief  review  of  the  grounds  of  our  hope, 
I  now  ask  your  attention  to  the  main  proposition  in  the  bill 
before  the  House,  the  repeal  of  the  commutation  clause.  Going 
back  to  the  primary  question  of  the  power  to  raise  armies,  I 
lay  it  down  as  a  fundamental  proposition,  as  an  inherent  and 
necessary  element  of  sovereignty,  that  a  nation  has  a  right  to 
the  personal  service  of  its  citizens.  The  stability  and  power 
of  every  sovereignty  rest  upon  that  basis.  Why  can  the 
citizen  claim  the  protection  of  the  government  ?  Because 
rights  and  duties  are  reciprocal,  and  the  government  owes  him 
protection  only  as  he  gives  sanction  and  power  to  the  law  by 
his  personal  service  and  the  contribution  of  his  wealth.  Hence, 
in  the  name  of  law,  he  can  demand  protection.  Hence  also,  in 
the  name  of  law,  his  government  can  demand  a  contribution 
from  his  purse  and  his  personal  service.  There  are  two  great 
muscles  that  move  the  arm  of  sovereignty,  —  the  treasury  and 
the  army.  If  a  nation  has  the  right  to  protect  itself,  it  must 
have  the  right  to  use  these  two  powers.  It  may,  therefore,  take 
money  from  the  citizen  in  accordance  with  the  forms  of  law. 
It  may  take  every  dollar  of  every  citizen,  if  so  much  should  be 
necessary,  in  order  to  support  and  maintain  the  government. 


CALLING   OUT  THE  NATIONAL  FORCES.        31 

And  if  the  nation  has  the  right  to  the  citizen's  money,  has  it 
not  equally  the  right  to  his  personal  service?  Coercion  accom- 
panies the  tax-gatherer  at  every  step.  The  law  of  revenue  rests 
upon  coercion.  Without  that  same  coercive  power  no  govern- 
ment could  put  a  soldier  into  the  .field.  As  well  might  we 
claim  that  the  legal  basis  of  the  treasury  is  the  contribution- 
box,  as  that  the  legal  basis  of  the  army  is  the  volunteering 
system. 

I  go  a  step  further.  Every  nation  under  heaven  claims  the 
right  to  order  its  citizens  into  the  ranks  as  soldiers.  Great  Brit- 
ain has  always  held  that  power  behind  her  volunteering  system. 
In  1798  she  made  a  law,  first  to  offer  bounties  to  volunteers,  and 
then  to  draft  her  enrolled  citizens  into  the  army.  No  such 
thing  as  commutation  was  known.  Gentlemen  talk  as  though 
the  right  to  pay  three  hundred  dollars  in  lieu  of  personal  service 
was  one  of  the  inalienable  rights  guaranteed  to  us  by  the  Con- 
stitution. They  forget  that  until  the  3d  of  March,  1863,  there 
was  never  known  in  this  country  such  a  thing  as  paying  money 
in  lieu  of  personal  service.  England  never  indeed  had  a  con- 
scription, but  she  did  provide  for  a  draft.  Under  the  law  of 
1798,  she  raised  her  militia  for  local  purposes,  and  drafted  from 
the  militia  into  the  regular  army  in  the  field. 

Let  us  look  for  a  moment  at  our  own  history  in  regard  to 
this  subject.  How  were  the  three  hundred  and  ninety-five 
thousand  men  raised  for  the  war  of  the  Revolution?  Every 
Colony  had  laws  for  calling  out  its  militia  and  compelling  them 
to  serve.  By  a  statute  of  Maryland  a  citizen  was  liable  to  a 
fine  of  ;^io,ooo  for  a  refusal  to  obey  the  command  when 
ordered  into  the  field.  By  a  statute  of  Massachusetts  as  early 
as  1693,  severe  punishments  were  provided  for  those  who  re- 
fused to  turn  out  for  military  duty  when  ordered.  The  spirit 
of  personal  independence  and  the  protection  of  individual 
rights  were  at  least  as  carefully  guarded  by  the  founders  of  the 
republic  as  they  are  by  this  generation,  and  yet  they  never 
doubted  the  power  of  the  States  to  compel  the  citizen  to  serve 
in  the  field.  It  makes  no  matter  whether  it  be  done  by  the 
President,  or  the  government  of  a  State,  the  same  principle  is 
involved. 

I  affirm  again  that  every  one  of  the  States  raised  men  by 
draft.  It  was  a  presumed  common  law  right.  The  Constitution 
of  the  United  States  recognizes  the  same  principle  by  declaring 


32         CALLING   OUT  THE  NATIONAL  FORCES. 

that  "  Congress  shall  have  power  to  provide  for  calling  forth 
the  militia  to  execute  the  laws  of  the  Union,  suppress  insur- 
rections, and  repel  invasions  " ;  *  and  on  the  29th  of  September, 
1789,  an  act  was  approved  (the  second  military  law  under  the 
Constitution),  giving  to  the  President  full  power  to  call  forth 
the  militia  to  protect  the  frontiers  against  the  Indians.  That 
law  was  extended  by  the  act  of  May  2,  1792,  so  as  to  give  him 
the  power  to  send  the  militia  beyond  the  limits  of  their  States. 
By  the  act  of  February  28,  1795,  his  power  was  still  further  ex- 
tended, and  a  heavy  penalty  was  affixed  for  disobedience  of  the 
law.  In  the  case  of  Houston  v,  Moore,^  and  also  in  Martin  v, 
Mott,^  the  Supreme  Court  decided  that  the  law  is  constitutional, 
and  that  the  President  has  the  constitutional  power  to  compel 
a  citizen  to  do  military  duty.  In  the  war  of  18 12  the  President 
called  on  the  States  for  troops,  and  when  a  sufficient  number 
did  not  volunteer  they  were  obtained  by  draft.  In  1839,  when 
the  dispute  occurred  between  this  country  and  England  in  refer- 
ence to  the  boundaries  of  the  State  of  Maine,  a  law  was  passed 
(March  3,  1839)  authorizing  the  President  to  call  forth  one 
hundred  thousand  men  for  six  months,  a  period  double  the 
length  allowed  by  former  laws.  Again,  the  draft  law  in  the  war 
of  18 1 2  allowed  substitutes,  but  not  commutation.  The  bill  be- 
fore us  permits  drafted  men  to  obtain  substitutes,  but  not  to  pay 
commutation.  I  say,  then,  since  the  beginning  of  the  govern- 
ment,—  still  further,  since  the  beginning  of  the  Revolution, — 
still  further,  since  the  founding  of  the  Colonies,  —  the  right  of 
sending  citizens  into  the  military  service  has  been  repeatedly 
asserted  and  exercised;  and  up  to  the  3d  of  March,  1863,  such 
a  thing  as  a  payment  of  money  in  lieu  of  military  service  was 
never  known  in  this  country.  Gentlemen  must,  therefore, 
abandon  the  claim  that  in  repealing  this  clause  we  are  interfer- 
ing with  immemorial  usage  and  inalienable  rights.  Even  the 
law  of  1863  did  not  regard  the  three  hundred  dollars  as  an 
equivalent  for  military  service.  It  provided  that  the  three  hun- 
dred dollars  should  be  paid  "  for  the  procuration  of  a  substi- 
tute," and  was  supposed  to  be  a  sum  sufficient  for  that  purpose. 
It  is  now  far  from  sufficient,  and  the  law  is  even  more  unjust 
than  at  first.  If  the  three  hundred  dollars  would  always  pro- 
cure a  substitute,  the  military  service  would  not  suffer  by  retain- 
ing the  clause. 

*  Art.  I.  Sect.  8.  «  5  Wheaton's  Reports,  i.  •12  Ibid.  19. 


CALLING   OUT  THE  NATIONAL  FORCES.         33 

But  what  are  the  facts  ?  The  President,  the  Secretary  of  War, 
our  own  knowledge  of  affairs,  tell  us  that,  if  it  be  retained,  it 
will  be  impossible  to  fill  the  places  of  the  eighty-five  thousand 
hundred-days  men  who  will  go  out  of  service  in  a  few  weeks, 
and  of  the  three-years  regiments  whose  terms  of  service  are 
every  day  expiring.  Moreover,  we  must  allow  something  for 
the  waste  of  battle,  the  waste  of  disease,  and  all  the  incidents  of 
war.  And  now,  while  our  armies  are  advancing  gloriously, 
while  our  campaigns  are  prosperous,  while  there  is  no  immedi- 
ate cause  for  alarm,  let  us  look  into  the  future  and  provide  for 
its  emergencies,  let  us  hold  up  the  hands  of  the  President  and 
remove  this  obstacle  from  the  law,  as  he  recommends.  Gentle- 
men doubt  what  the  people  will  say  and  how  they  will  feel.  I 
have  learned  that  the  people  are  braver  than  their  representa- 
tives. I  would  much  sooner  take  counsel  of  the  American 
people,  arid  especially  the  American  army,  than  of  their  repre- 
sentatives when  an  election  is  at  hand.  Would  to  God  there 
were  no  Presidential  election  to  cast  its  shadow  over  this  battle 
summer,  and  no  Congressional  elections  overshadowing  this 
House!  Perhaps  we  might  then  see  with  clearer  vision  the 
interests  of  the  country,  and  strike  toward  them  with  bolder 
hands.  This  I  do  know,  that  the  loyal  people  have  laid  up  a 
great  oath  on  the  altar  that  they  will  never  rest  till  the  rebellion 
is  overthrown,  and  they  will  take  all  necessary  means  to  hew 
their  way  through  to  this  purpose.  I  know  that  the  people 
whom  I  represent  have  united  their  destiny  with  the  destiny  of 
the  Union,  and  will  share  its  fortunes,  whatever  betide  it.  I 
have  not  asked  them,  but  I  believe  they  will  respond  cheerfully 
to  this  measure.  But  whatever  they  may  do,  I  shall  strive  to 
remove  all  obstacles  to  the  increase  of  the  army. 

I  ask  gentlemen  who  oppose  this  repeal,  why  they  desire  to 
make  it  easy  for  citizens  to  escape  from  military  duty.  Is  it 
a  hardship  to  serve  one's  country?  Is  it  disgraceful  service? 
Will  you,  by  your  action  here,  say  to  the  soldiers  in  the  field, 
"  This  is  disreputable  business ;  you  have  been  deceived ;  you 
have  been  caught  in  the  trap,  and  we  will  make  no  law  to  put 
anybody  else  in  it?"  Do  not  thus  treat  your  soldiers  in  the 
field.  They  are  proud  of  their  voluntary  service ;  and  if  there 
be  one  wish  of  the  army  paramount  to  all  others,  one  message 
more  earnest  than  any  other  which  they  send  back  to  you,  it  is 
that  you  will  aid  in  filling  their  battle-thinned  ranks  by  a  draft 

VOL.  I.  3 


34         CALLING  OUT  THE  NATIONAL  FORCES. 

that  will  compel  lukewarm  citizens  who  prate  against  the  war 
to  go  into  the  field.  They  ask  not  that  you  will  expend  large 
bounties  in  paying  men  of  third-rate  patriotism,  while  they  went 
with  no  other  bounty  than  that  love  of  country  to  which  they 
gave  their  young  lives  a  free  offering,  but  that  you  will  compel 
these  eleventh-hour  men  to  take  their  chances  in  the  field 
beside  them.  Let  us  grant  their  request,  and  by  a  steady  and 
persistent  effort  we  shall  in  the  end,  be  it  near  or  remote,  be  it 
in  one  year  or  ten,  crown  the  nation  with  victory  and  enduring 
peace. 


THE  SALE  OF  SURPLUS  GOLD. 

REMARKS  MADE  IN  THE  HOUSE  OF  REPRESENTATIVES. 

February  i8  and  March  15, 1864. 


On  the  i8th  of  Februaiy^  1864^  a  joint  resolution  was  reported  to  the 
House  from  the  Committee  of  Ways  and  Means,  authorizing  the  Secretary 
of  the  Treasury  from  time  to  time,  at  his  discretion,  to  sell  any  gold  coin 
in  the  treasury  over  and  above  the  amount  which,  in  his  opinion,  might 
be  required  by  the  government  for  the  payment  of  interest  on  the  public 
debt.  Mr.  Garfield  made  the  following  remarks,  the  first  that  he  made 
upon  a  financial  subject  in  the  House  of  Representatives. 

MR.  SPEAKER,  —  I  propose  to  detain  the  House  but  a 
few  moments  on  the  question  before  it,  as  all  I  wish  is  to 
state,  as  clearly  as  possible,  the  conditions  of  the  proposition  as 
they  exist  in  the  resolution. 

By  the  present  law  gold  can  come  into  the  treasury  of  the 
United  States  through  the  customs  and  various  other  avenues. 
But  there  is  only  one  avenue  by  which  it  goes  out,  namely,  the 
payment  of  the  interest  on  the  public  debt.  There  was  in  the 
treasury  on  Saturday  last  $18,900,000  in  gold.  It  is  coming 
into  the  treasury  at  the  rate  of  four  or  five  hundred  thousand 
dollars  a  day ;  at  the  lowest  estimate  it  is  four  hundred  thou- 
sand dollars.  If  this  rate  continues  until  the  ist  of  July  next, 
we  shall  have  $74,107,213. 

Mr.  Boutwell.  I  wish  to  ask  the  gentleman  whether  the  Secretary  of 
the  Treasury,  in  his  estimate  of  the  receipts  and  expenditures  for  the 
fiscal  year  1864-65,  does  not  show  that  our  interest  account,  which  is  to 
be  met  by  the  payment  of  specie,  will  exceed  ^85,000,000,  while  our  re- 
ceipts through  the  custom-house  will  amount  to  but  ^70,000,000,  showing 
a  deficiency  for  the  fiscal  year  1864-65  of  ;$  15,000,000, 

I  should  have  answered  the  gentleman  in  my  next  sentence 
had  he  not  interrupted  me.     The  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  re- 


36  THE  SALE   OF  SURPLUS  GOLD. 

ports  that  there  will  become  due  at  various  times,  ending  with 
the  1st  of  July  next,  $23,601,943,  to  be  paid  in  gold.  That  is 
every  dollar  of  coin  which  the  treasury  of  the  United  States 
will  be  obliged  to  pay  up  to  that  time.  Now,  there  will  remain 
a  surplus  in  the  treasury,  on  the  basis  of  the  present  receipts, 

—  and  the  receipts  have  greatly  exceeded  the  estimates,  —  on 
the  1st  of  July  next,  of  $50,505,270,  and,  according  to  the  pres- 
ent practice  of  the  government,  no  disposition  of  it  will  be 
made. 

Mr.  Fernando  Wood.  I  desire  to  ask  the  gentleman  upon  what  basis* 
or  upon  what  data,  he  estimates  the  receipts  of  gold  from  the  custom- 
house, or  any  other  sources,  up  to  the  ist  of  July  next 

The  estimates  are  based  upon  what  we  have  been  receiving 
for  several  months  past,  and  the  fact  that  the  months  immedi- 
ately to  come  are  always  better  than  the  winter  months.  I  base 
the  estimates  upon  what  we  have  been  receiving  from  day  to 
day  for  many  weeks.  These  estimates  may  be  too  large,  but 
that  would  not  alter  the  principle  involved.  No  one  doubts 
that  there  will  be  a  surplus. 

I  say,  then,  that  by  taking  the  average,  or  a  sum  rather  below 
the  present  average,  —  and  we  have  every  indication  that  the 
average  will  rather  increase  than  decrease  in  the  coming  months, 

—  wc  shall  have  on  the  ist  of  July  $50,500,000  in  gold  in  the 
treasury,  with  no  law  for  paying  it  out.  Now,  what  is  the  re- 
sult? There  is,  probably,  according  to  the  estimates  of  gentle- 
men, scattered  through  the  country  in  the  feet  of  old  stockings, 
locked  up  in  trunks,  put  away  in  bureaus,  laid  away  under  the 
heads  of  beds  and  in  vaults  of  banks,  $200,000,000  of  gold.  I 
suspect  that  to  be  a  large  estimate,  judging  from  the  statements 
of  trade. 

Now,  sir,  on  the  ist  of  July  next  one  quarter  of  all  the  gold  in 
the  United  States  will  be  locked  up  in  the  vaults  of  the  United 
States  Treasury,  and  lying  there  as  dead  matter.  Every  dollar 
that  goes  in  there  leaves  the  amount  in  circulation  a  dollar  less, 
raises  the  price  of  gold,  disturbs  the  market,  and  disgraces  our 
credit;  and  yet,  because  it  is  locked  up  in  the  treasury,  and  we 
will  not  pass  a  law  sending  it  out,  our  credit  must  go  down  and 
down,  further  and  further,  as  Mr.  Lamar  and  his  coadjutors  in 
the  Rebel  States  desire  it  shall  go  down,  and  as  his  coadjutors 
in  the  Northern  States  seem  to  desire  it  shall  go  down.     They 


THE  SALE   OF  SURPLUS  GOLD.  37 

are  talking  in  the  most  anxious  manner  here — witness  the  last 
speech  to  which  we  have  listened  —  of  returning  to  a  specie 
basis.  Do  not  gentlemen  upon  this  floor  know  that  no  great 
war  was  ever  waged  in  modern  times  with  specie?  It  is  one  of 
the  settled  and  inevitable  laws  of  trade,  that  great  wars  must  be 
conducted  with  a  paper  currency,  and  not  with  gold. 

Now,  why  do  we  ask  that  this  great  amount  of  capital  shall 
be,  from  time  to  time,  liberated?  For  the  best  reason  in  the 
world.  Generally  I  would  not  interfere  with  the  laws  of  trade ; 
they  are  as  immutable  as  the  laws  of  nature ;  but  I  would  now 
interfere  with  them  because  they  are  not  in  a  natural  and  normal 
condition ;  they  are  in  a  condition  superinduced  by  the  necessi- 
ties of  war,  and  it  is  to  counteract  this  abnormal  state  of  trade 
that  we  are  disposed  to  let  loose  this  gold  so  as  to  keep  up  the 
credit  of  the  government.  What  has  so  changed  the  character 
of  gold?  It  is  hardly  to  be  called  the  representative  of  value; 
it  is  fast  becoming  a  commodity,  instead  of  a  medium  of  ex- 
change ;  and  if  the  war  continues  very  much  longer  it  will  be 
merely  a  commodity,  and  not  a  circulating  medium.  It  is  well 
known  that,  when  paper  currency  comes  into  general  use,  it 
expels  gold,  and  that  such  is  its  natural  tendency.  Our  gold  is 
scattered  over  the  border,  driven  to  Canada,  sent  abroad,  and 
the  amount  actually  in  use  in  the  business  of  the  country  is  so 
small  that,  if  we  reduce  it  by  locking  up  $50,000,000  in  the 
vaults  of  the  treasury,  we  shall  create  a  panic  that  will  ruin  the 
business  of  the  country. 

The  gentleman  from  Ohio  ^  has  offered  an  amendment,  that 
this  surplus  shall  be  paid  to  the  soldiers  in  the  field.  I  remem- 
ber the  political  capital  that  some  gentlemen  on  the  other  side 
of  the  House  attempted  to  make  on  the  subject  of  paying  sai- 
lors and  soldiers  in  coin ;  and  I  remember  a  remark  which  was 
made,  and  which  what  I  see  in  the  galleries  this  morning  almost 
prohibits  me  from  repeating,  but  that  a  sense  of  justice  requires 
that  I  should  repeat.  It  was  charged  on  the  other  side  of  the 
House,  that,  if  we  did  not  pay  our  sailors  and  soldiers  in  gold, 
their  wives  would  become  prostitutes.  I  stood  here  as  a  man 
abashed ;  I  stood  amazed  and  ashamed  that  I  belonged  to  a 
body  in  which  such  an  utterance  could  be  made  about  the  loyal 
women  of  this  country. 

Every  gentleman  upon  this  floor  knows  well  that  it  is  impos- 

1  Mr.  Long. 


38  THE  SALE   OF  SURPLUS  GOLD. 

sible  now  to  return  to  a  specie  basis.  Every  man  who  has 
looked  into  the  condition  of  the  country  knows  that  it  is  impos- 
sible, without  utter  prostration  and  ruin,  to  attempt  to  return  to 
a  specie  basis  at  this  time.  It  becomes  us,  then,  to  use  the  gold 
that  we  have  to  keep  up  the  credit  of  the  country,  and  not  to 
destroy  it ;  and  I  do  not  propose  to  be  deterred  by  references 
to  all  those  laws  and  resolutions  that  have  been  passed  hitherto 
in  regard  to  the  policy  of  the  country. 

I  am  not  in  such  unfortunate  circumstances  as*  the  gentleman 
from  New  York  *  who  has  just  spoken.  I  am  under  no  pres- 
sure from  any  quarter,  from  any  particular  source,  from  any 
particular  person ;  I  am  under  no  instructions  from  any  man, 
in  office  or  out  of  office,  how  to  vote,  think,  or  act  upon  this 
subject  I  have  not  been  honored  with  that  pressure,  and  I 
am  therefore  free  to  act  as  it  seems  to  me  the  pressure  of  the 
country  and  its  interests  require;  and  I  ask  gentlemen  now 
whether  they  are  willing  to  help  to  carry  out  the  scheme  of 
Lamar,  of  Georgia,  to  help  to  reduce  the  value  of  our  paper 
currency,  until  we  shall  be  ruined,  as  the  Southern  Confederacy 
is  being  ruined,  by  its  finances,  rather  than  by  its  battles. 

There  are  two  elements  which  decide  the  question  of  war. 
One  is  military,  the  other  is  financial.  The  man  who  destroys 
the  finances  of  a  country  ruins  it  as  thoroughly  as  he  who  de- 
stroys its  army.  It  becomes  us,  therefore,  while  we  replenish 
our  armies  on  the  one  hand,  to  maintain  the  credit  of  the  treas- 
ury on  the  other.  For  that  purpose  I  believe  this  measure  is 
wise.  I  know  it  ought  to  be  guarded;  and  any  amendment 
that  will  make  it  more  carefully  worded,  and  that  will  protect  us 
from  all  chances  of  fraud  or  corruption  on  the  part  of  govern- 
ment officials,  I  shall  be  glad  to  vote  for.  But  I  am  unwilling 
that  we  should  defeat  the  purpose  of  the  resolution,  and  lock  up 
this  money,  on  the  old  idea  that  money  locked  in  vaults  is  as 
good  as  money  in  circulation. 


On  the  15th  of  March  following,  the  measure  having  been  to  the  Sen- 
ate and  returned  to  the  House,  Mr.  Garfield  made  these  remarks.  As 
finally  adopted  and  approved,  the  joint  resolution  authorized  the  Secre- 
tary of  the  Treasury  to  anticipate  the  payment  of  interest,  and  to  "  dis- 
pose of  any  gold  in  the  treasury  not  necessary  for  the  payment  of  inter- 

1  Mr.  Brooks. 


THE  SALE   OF  SURPLUS  GOLD.  39 

est  on  the  public  debt/'  provided  the  obligation  to  create  the  sinking  fund 
should  not  be  impaired. 

Mr.  Speaker,  —  I  design  to  detain  the  House  but  a  few 
minutes  with  what  I  have  to  say  on  this  subject ;  but  I  wish  to 
state  what  seems  to  me  the  present  condition  of  the  question. 
There  have  been  so  many  things  said,  we  have  wandered  so  far 
from  the  proposition  before  the  House,  that  I  wish  to  restate 
the  question  as  it  now  lies  before  us. 

This  House  passed  a  joint  resolution  authorizing  the  Secre- 
tary of  the  Treasury  to  dispose  of  the  surplus  gold  by  antici- 
pating the  payment  of  interest  on  the  public  debt.  There  were 
two  principal  reasons  assigned  why  we  should  dispose  of  this 
gold :  first,  that  it  was  accumulating  on  our  hands  faster  than 
we  had  any  legal  means  of  using  it;  and  secondly,  that,  by 
thus  accumulating,  it  was  causing  a  continually  increasing  strin- 
gency in  the  gold  market,  with  a  consequent  rise  of  price.  It 
seemed  therefore  just,  that,  as  by  law  we  had  interfered  with 
the  gold  market,  we  should  by  law  provide  for  curing  that 
interference.  We  all  recognize  the  fact,  that,  if  gold  continues 
to  advance,  it  very  much  injures,  not  only  the  people  at  large, 
but  also  the  government  and  its  securities.  It  has  been  proved 
by  more  accurate  statistics  than  we  had  before  us  on  the  8th 
of  March,  when  the  House  acted  on  this  matter,  that  by  the 
17th  of  July  next  there  will  be  nearly  thirty  million  dollars  of 
surplus  gold  in  the  treasury.  That  has  been  tested  by  the  most 
careful  estimates  possible,  not  only  here,  but  in  the  other  wing 
of  the  Capitol. 

Now,  Mr.  Speaker,  three  ways  for  returning  this  gold  into  the 
general  circulation  have  been  proposed.  The  first  is  by  direct 
sale,  —  the  proposition  that  comes  to  us  from  the  Senate. 
The  second  is  by  anticipating  the  payment  of  interest.  And 
the  third  is  by  creating  a  sinking  fund,  as  already  provided 
for  by  law.  As  to  the  second  and  third,  I  have  only  a  word 
to  say. 

To  create  a  sinking  fund  as  provided  by  law  is  at  present  sim- 
ply an  absurdity.  I  see  no  wisdom  in  buying  up  the  bonds  of 
the  government  when  we  are  now  borrowing  $2,cxx),cxx)  a  day 
to  meet  our  current  expenses.  It  makes  the  government  enact 
the  farce  of  borrowing  money  of  itself.  It  is  true  that  we  are 
required  by  law  to  create  a  sinking  fund,  but  no  one  can  charge 


40  THE  SALE  OF  SURPLUS  GOLD. 

us  with  a  breach  of  faith  if  we  refrain  from  creating  such  a 
fund  while  we  are  still  borrowing.  We  can  repeal  that  law  alto- 
gether without  any  violation  of  the  faith  of  the  country. 

Now,  suppose  we  anticipate  the  interest  on  the  public  debt, 
with  or  without  rebate,  as  provided  by  the  original  bill  which 
passed  this  House  on  the  8th  instant.  Everybody  knows  that 
no  man  would  receive  prepayment  and  allow  an  abatement  of 
interest.  Why?  Money  in  the  New  York  market  is  now  worth 
but  little  more  than  five  per  cent,  and  of  course  no  man  will 
call  in  his  money  drawing  a  larger  rate  of  interest  and  immedi- 
ately reinvest  it  at  a  lower  rate.  Therefore  we  may  as  well 
dismiss  from  our  minds  any  hope  that  we  can  get  a  rebate  by 
anticipating  the  interest  on  our  bonds ;  and  the  proposition  to 
undertake  to  pay  our  debts  before  they  are  due,  while  at  the 
same  time  we  are  borrowing  money  to  pay  debts  overdue,  is  so 
absurd  that  a  plain  statement  of  it  is  its  best  refutation. 

Another  objection  to  the  bill  as  it  passed  the  House  is,  that 
the  remedy  is  inadequate  to  meet  the  difficulty  we  seek  to  ob- 
viate. If  we  conclude  to  anticipate  the  payment  of  interest,  the 
process  will  be  so  slow  as  to  have  no  appreciable  effect  upon 
the  gold  market  It  takes  weeks  to  make  the  small  monthly 
payments  of  interest  as  they  become  due ;  and  if  we  undertake 
to  pay  them  before  they  are  due,  the  process  will  be  still  slower, 
and  will  utterly  fail  to  bring  down  the  price  of  gold.  Let  me 
read  an  extract  from  one  of  the  daily  journals,  published  the 
morning  after  the  passage  of  the  bill  by  the  House,  showing 
how  it  was  regarded  by  the  commercial  men  of  New  York.  I 
read  from  the  New  York  Commercial  Advertiser,  of  March  9th. 

"  After  four  o'clock,  the  news  of  the  passage  of  Mr.  Boutwell's  gold 
bill  reached  the  market.  The  bill  merely  authorizes  the  Secretary  of 
the  Treasury  to  anticipate  the  payment  of  interest  on  the  public  debt 
from  time  to  time,  with  or  without  a  rebate  of  interest  upon  the  coupons, 
as  to  him  may  seem  expedient.  In  this  amended  form  it  passed,  ninety 
against  thirty-four,  —  a  very  strong  vote,  •  which  seems  to  fvyi  the  policy 
of  Congress.  This  amounts  to  nothing  in  the  way  of  relief,  since  it  is  of 
no  practical  value  whether  the  ^3,000,000  due  on  the  ist  of  April,  and 
the  ^15,000,000  due  on  the  ist  of  May,  are  begun  to  be  paid  now  or 
then.  It  will  take  a  month  at  least  to  pay  the  1815,000,000.  When 
;S6,ooo,ooo  was  due  on  November  ist,  it  required  the  whole  month  to 
complete  the  payments,  and  the  price  of  gold  was  not  affected  at  all. 
The  Secretary  lias  now  the  same  duty  as  before,  to  apply  the  gold  to 


THE  SALE   OF  SURPLUS  GOLD.  41 

the  purchase  of  stock  for  the  sinking  fund,  a  process  which  would  freely 
deplete  the  treasury.  On  the  promulgation  of  the  passage  of  this  bill, 
gold,  which  had  been  dull  at  163  J,  immediately  rose  to  164^,  and  in 
the  evening  sales  reached  165I. 

"  This  morning  the  assemblage  at  the  gold  rooms  was  prompt,  and 
the  opening  price  was  165  J. 

"The  demand  continued  very  active,  and  the  rate  soon  touched  168, 
when  a  little  reaction  set  in,  and  it  declined  to  16  7  J,  and  again  recov- 
ered to  168^  to  i68|  at  12  M. 

"  The  rate  for  exchange  went  up  in  the  same  proportion,  and  sales 
were  made  at  181  J,  but  this  rate  is  still  lower  than  gold." 

Now  see  the  result.  The  business  men  of  New  York,  who 
are  perfectly  familiar  with  the  whole  subject,  took  it  up,  and  the 
moment  the  bill  was  passed  declared  what  the  result  would  be. 
They  knew  how  perfectly  futile  would  be  its  effect  on  the  price 
of  gold,  and  up  went  gold  eight  or  nine  per  cent  in  a  single  day. 
They  saw  by  how  large  a  majority  the  bill  had  passed  the  House, 
and  they  considered  that  majority  an  indication  that  the  House 
would  insist  upon  its  action.  It  seems  to  me  there  is  a  practi- 
cal lesson,  which  this  House  should  not  fail  to  profit  by,  in 
the  consequences  which  followed  our  action  when  this  bill  was 
originally  passed. 

Wc  have,  therefore,  proposed  as  a  remedy  for  the  present 
difficulty  growing  out  of  the  accumulation  of  gold  in  the  treas- 
ury; first,  the  creation  of  a  sinking  fund;  next,  the  anticipation 
of  the  payment  of  the  interest  on  the  public  debt;  neither  of 
which,  as  I  have  already  shown,  is  at  all  adequate  to  meet  the 
present  emergency.  We  have,  then,  in  the  third  place,  the 
proposition  to  place  in  the  hands  of  the  Secretary  of  the  Treas- 
ury the  power,  after  reserving  in  the  treasury  an  amount  of 
gold  sufficient  to  provide  for  the  payment  of  the  interest  in  coin, 
to  take  the  large  balance,  and  so  wield  it  as  to  knock  down  the 
price  of  gold;  and  if  at  the  same  time  he  knocks  down  the  gold 
speculators,  they  will  meet  a  just  reward  for  their  presumptuous 
sins.  **  Let  them  not  have  dominion  over  us."  Sir,  it  will  be 
a  power  that  can  be  wielded  for  good,  not  only  now,  but  at  any 
time  in  the  future,  as  the  nature  of  the  case  may  require.  I  be- 
lieve that  the  proposition  contained  in  the  amendment  of  the 
Senate  is,  on  the  whole,  the  best  that  we  can  adopt 


FREE  COMMERCE  BETWEEN  THE  STATES, 

SPEECH  DELIVERED  IN  THE  HOUSE  OF  REPRESENTATIVES, 

March  24  and  31,  1864. 


Towards  the  close  of  the  war,  the  urgent  need  of  additional  railroad 
facilities  between  Washington  City  and  the  Northern  and  Eastern  States 
became  painfully  apparent.  January  6,  1864,  the  House  of  Represent- 
atives created  a  special  committee  of  nine  members,  "  with  authority  to 
examine  into  the  expediency  of  the  establishment  of  a  new  route  for 
postal  and  other  purposes"  between  Washington  and  New  York.  Of 
this  committee  Mr.  Garfield  was  a  member.  Various  propositions  were 
submitted  at  that  session ;  but  the  only  one  that  seriously  arrested  the 
attention  of  the  House  and  the  country  was  a  bill  reported  from  the 
Military  Committee,  March  9,  "  to  declare  certain  roads  military  road's 
and  post-roads."  This  bill  was  introduced  in  response  to  a  petition  of 
the  Raritan  and  Delaware  Bay  Railroad  Company,  asking  to  have  their 
road  declared  a  lawful  structure,  and  a  post  and  military  road  of  the 
United  States.  This  was  the  case,  as  stated  by  Mr.  H.  C.  Deming,  of 
Connecticut,  who  introduced  the  measure  and  opened  the  debate,  March 
17,  1864. 

"  The  petitioners  have  constructed  a  raib-oad  from  Port  Monmouth, 
near  Sandy  Hook,  to  Atsion,  which  lies  nearly  east  of  Philadelphia,  and 
it  is  connected  by  the  Batsto  branch  with  the  Camden  and  Atlantic  Rail- 
road Company.  Thus,  by  means  of  the  road  they  have  constructed,  by 
means  of  the  Batsto  branch,  and  by  means  of  the  Camden  and  Atlantic 
Railroad  Company,  they  have  a  railroad  constructed  from  Port  Mon- 
mouth, near  Sandy  Hook,  to  Camden,  which  is  opposite  the  city  of 
Philadelphia.  They  have  also  a  steamboat  running  fbom  the  city  of  New 
York  to  Port  Monmouth,  and  a  ferry  running  from  Camden  to  Phila- 
delphia ;  and  thus,  by  means  of  their  raib-oads,  their  steamboats,  and 
their  ferry,  they  have  a  continuous  through  line  from  the  city  of  New 
York  to  the  city  of  Philadelphia.  In  one  great  emergency  of  the  na- 
tion, shortly  after  the  battle  of  Antietam,  when  there  was  a  universal 
panic  through  the  country,  when  the  interests  of  the  republic  were 
most  seriously  imperilled,  this  continuous  through  line  from  New  York  to 


COMMERCE  BETWEEN  THE  STATES.  43 

Philadelphia  was  able  to  render  great  service  to  the  nation,  and  actually 
carried  over  this  through  line  upwards  of  seventeen  thousand  troops,  and 
upwards  of  eight  hundred  thousand  pounds  of  munitions  of  war.  Shortly 
after  they  had  performed  this  great  service  to  the  country,  a  petition  for 
an  injunction  was  brought  against  them  by  the  Camden  and  Amboy 
Raihoad  Company  before  the  Chancellor  of  New  Jersey ;  and  since  this 
subject  has  been  before  the  committee,  a  decree  of  the  Chancellor  has 
been  issued  in  that  case,  a  synopsis  of  which  will  be  found  in  the  report 
which  accompanies  this  bill.  The  Chancellor  enjoins  the  use  of  the 
petitioners'  road,  except  for  local  purposes,  and  orders  that  the  Raritan 
and  Delaware  Bay  Railroad  Company  pay  to  the  Camden  and  Amboy 
Railroad  Company  all  sums  collected  by  the  former  for  through  business, 
including  the  amount  received  for  transportation  of  troops;  and  the 
Ch^hcellor  decrees  that  the  petitioners*  road  has  no  right  to  carry  or 
aid  in  carrying,  passengers  and  freight  between  New  York  and  Philadel- 
phia. The  effect  of  this  decision,  as  the  House  will  see,  is  to  destroy 
this  road  as  a  continuous  through  road  between  New  York  and  Phila- 
delphia. It  confines  it  to  local  business  between  Camden  and  Port 
Monmouth.  It  cuts  off  both  ends  of  the  road,  cuts  off  the  steamboat 
transportation  on  the  Raritan  Bay,  and  the  ferry  upon  the  Delaware 
River,  thus  destroying  the  road  as  a  continuous  through  route  between 
New  York  and  Philadelphia. 

"Under  these  circumstances  the  petitioners  come  to  Congress  for 
relief,  praying  that  their  road  and  its  branches,  and  its  accompanying 
ferries,  may  be  declared  lawful  structures,  and  also  post  and  military 
roads  of  the  United  States."  ^ 

Upon  this  bill,  March  24  and  31,  Mr.  Garfield  made  this  speech. 
May  13,  the  House  struck  out  all  after  the  enacting  clause,  and  inserted 
the  following :  "  That  every  railroad  company  in  the  United  States, 
whose  road  is  operated  by  steam,  its  successors  and  assigns,  be  and  is 
hereby  authorized  to  carry  upon  and  over  its  road,  connections,  boats, 
bridges,  and  ferries,  all  freight,  property,  mails,  passengers,  troops,  and 
government  supplies,  on  their  way  from  one  State  to  another  State,  and 
to  receive  compensation  therefor."  In  this  form  the  bill  passed,  with 
the  title,  "  A  Bill  to  regulate  Commerce  among  the  several  States."  A 
vote  on  the  bill  was  never  reached  in  the  Senate. 

But  this  was  not  the  end  of  the  measure.  Early  the  next  session,  Mr. 
Garfield  himself  reintroduced  the  bill  in  the  form  just  given.  After  be- 
ing amended,  so  as  to  allow  railroads  "  to  connect  with  roads  of  other 
States,  so  as  to  form  continuous  lines,"  and  denying  them  the  right  "  to 
build  any  new  road,  or  connect  with  any  other  road,  without  authority 
from  the  State  in  which  said  railroad  or  connection  may  be  proposed," 
the  bill  passed,  and  became  a  law,  June  15,  1866.     In  some  remarks 

*  Congressional  Globe,  March  17,  p   1165. 


44  COMMERCE  BETWEEN  THE  STATES. 

made  on  December  19, 1865,  Mr.  Garfield  said  that  the  bill  was  ''a  plain 
determination  of  the  right  of  Congress  to  regulate  commerce  between 
the  States/'  and  that  it  "struck  a  blow  at  those  hateful  monopolies 
which  had  been  so  long  preying  upon  the  body  of  American  industry." 
Kindred  topics  were  discussed  by  him,  May  30  and  31,  1866,  in  re- 
marks upon  the  bill  to  make  the  Cleveland  and  Mahoning  Railroad  a 
military,  postal,  and  commercial  railroad  of  the  United  States. 


MR.  SPEAKER,  —  Before  I  proceed  to  discuss  the  merits 
of  this  bill,  I  must  express  my  disapprobation  of  all 
those  remarks,  of  which  we  have  heard  very  many  since  this 
debate  began,  respecting  the  probable  motives  of  the  com- 
mittees and  members  of  this  House.  Such  considerations  are 
wholly  unworthy  of  ourselves  and  our  position. 

The  gentleman  from  New  Jersey^  has  intimated  that  the 
Committee  on  Military  Affairs  was  not  unanimous  in  its  action 
upon  this  bill.  I  should  like  to  know  by  what  authority  he 
makes  that  assertion.  If  any  member  of  the  Military  Commit- 
tee is  opposed  to  the  bill,  he  can  speak  for  himself.  We  have 
also  been  told  that  there  are  outside  influences  at  work  here ; 
that  the  lobbies  are  full  of  corporation  agents,  crowding  around 
us  on  all  hands,  and  pressing  their  influences  upon  the  commit- 
tees and  the  House.  I  have  only  to  say,  that  such  remarks  are 
wholly  unworthy  of  this  place,  and  should  be  condemned  as 
undignified  and  unbefitting  the  character  of  men  holding  the 
high  place  of  legislators  for  the  American  nation. 

The  gentleman  from  Pennsylvania  ^  who  has  just  addressed 
the  House  stated  that  New  Jersey  politics,  New  Jersey  inter- 
ests, and  New  Jersey  legislation  were  brought  before  us  and 
animadverted  upon  in  order  to  control  our  action.  This  is  all 
small-talk  aside  from  the  issue,  and  should  not  have  a  feather's 
weight  in  determining  the  action  of  this  body.  He  treats  the 
Raritan  and  Atlantic  Railroad  as  a  part  of  a  proposed  air-line 
road,  and  reads  us  a  lesson  from  the  hornbooks  of  geometry  to 
prove  that  this  broken  line  of  roads  does  not  satisfy  Euclid's 
definition  of  a  straight  line.  We  do  not  need  discussions  of 
that  sort  to  enable  us  to  understand  the  nature  of  a  monopoly, 
or  our  duty  as  legislators.  The  question  before  us  is  a  part  of 
the  larger  one  of  increasing  the  railroad  facilities  between  New 

^  Mr.  Rogers.  >  Mr.  Broomall. 


COMMERCE  BETWEEN  THE  STATES.  45 

York  and  Washington.    The  considerations  which  bear  upon 
that  question  bear  also  upon  this. 

It  is  a  notorious  fact,  that  the  means  of  communication  be- 
tween the  commercial  metropolis  and  the  political  metropolis 
of  this  country  are  exceedingly  deficient.  This  cannot  be  de- 
nied. We  have  it  from  the  Post-Office  Department,  we  have  it 
from  the  War  Department,  we  have  it  from  the  business  public, 
and  we  have  it  from  the  experience  of  every  gentleman  who 
has  travelled  over  this  route,  or  who  has  had  occasion  to  trans- 
port freight  over  it,  —  that  there  can  scarcely  be  found  in  the 
United  States  any  two  important  cities  with  railroad  facilities 
so  inadequate  as  those  between  New  York  and  Washington. 

It  is  a  fact  to  which  I  wish  to  call  the  attention  of  the  House, 
and  I  have  the  consent  of  the  committee  to  which  I  belong  to 
state  it,  that,  in  reply  to  a  letter  addressed  to  him,  the  Quarter- 
master-General states  that  the  facilities  of  the  present  roads 
are  not  sufficient  for  the  transportation  of  forage  for  the  ani- 
mals belonging  to  the  Army  of  the  Potomac  and  the  troops 
about  this  city.  He  states  officially  that  it  requires  three  hun- 
dred and  seventy-five  car-loads  of  long  forage  and  seventy-four 
car-loads  of  short  forage  per  day  to  feed  the  animals  belong- 
ing to  the  army  in  front  of  Washington.  This  does  not  include 
transportation  of  quartermasters*  stores.  It  does  not  include 
commissary  supplies.  It  does  not  include  the  ordinary  necessi- 
ties of  trade  in  this  capital.  It  includes  only  this  one  item,  — 
the  supply  of  the  animals  of  the  army,  which  requires  four  hun- 
dred and  forty-nine  car-loads  of  forage  per  day;  all  of  which 
must  come  to  the  city  of  Washington  over  a  single  track,  the 
only  means  of  access  in  time  of  winter  to  the  capital  of  the 
nation.  A  large  part  of  these  supplies  come  over  the  line 
between  New  York  and  this  place.  At  the  time  of  the  ice 
blockade,  on  the  1st  of  January  last  and  the  week  succeed- 
ing, the  Quartermaster-General  reported  that  he  received  but 
t\\'enty  car-loads  of  forage  for  a  whole  week.  He  should  have 
received  seven  times  four  hundred  and  forty-nine  car-loads. 
The  Potomac,  and  the  railroad  itself,  which  in  two  places 
crosses  an  arm  of  the  sea,  were  blockaded  with  ice. 

The  quartermaster  further  reported,  that,  if  the  blockade  had 
continued  one  week  longer,  the  animals  of  the  army  would  have 
been  in  a  starving  condition.  It  stands  before  this  government  as 
a  matter  of  fact,  that  had  the  ice  remained  in  the  river  two  weeks 


46  COMMERCE  BETWEEN  THE  STATES. 

longer,  the  animals  of  the  army  of  the  Potomac  would  have 
perished.  You  could  not  have  fed  your  army,  you  could  not 
have  preserved  your  animals,  you  could  not  have  maintained 
your  war,  if  the  providence  of  God  had  not  broken  the  fetters 
of  winter ;  for  the  simple  reason  that  a  power  not  in  the  hands 
of  the  government,  but  in  the  hands  of  a  great  corporation, 
holds  the  key  to  all  communication  between  this  city  and  the 
outside  world. 

Now  the  question  comes,  Has  this  government  the  right  to 
protect  itself?  has  this  nation  the  right  to  feed  itself?  has  it  the 
right  to  feed  its  army?  If  it  has  any  of  these  rights,  it  has  the 
consequent  right  to  adopt  and  use  the  means  necessary  to  ac- 
complish the  purpose.  No  small-talk  about  New  Jersey  or 
Pennsylvania  politics,  no  small-talk  about  an  air  line,  a  broken 
line,  or  a  curved  line,  will  meet  the  gigantic  fact  which  stares 
Congress  in  the  face,  that  we  must  feed  our  army,  and  to  do  so 
must  increase  our  railroad  facilities  from  this  place  to  the  out- 
side world,  and  most  of  all  between  this  city  and  the  great  com- 
mercial metropolis  of  the  nation.  I  pass  from  this  general 
consideration  to  the  specific  one,  the  bill  before  us. 

Mr.  Morris.  The  gentleman  speaks  of  obstructions  by  ice.  I  wish 
to  inquire  whether  they  will  be  remedied  in  the  future  if  this  bill  is 
passed.  In  other  words.  Is  the  obstruction  on  either  of  the  roads  in 
this  bill? 

I  will  answer,  that  the  proposed  new  road,  for  the  construc- 
tion of  which  the  select  committee  on  that  subject  has  prepared 
a  bill,  will  be  on  a  line  above  tide-water,  where  all  the  streams 
can  be  permanently  bridged,  thereby  avoiding  the  ice  and  com- 
pletely answering  the  question  which  the  gentleman  raises. 

I  have  thus  far  only  stated  the  fact  that  we  are  miserably  and 
notoriously  deficient  in  means  of  communication  between  this 
city  and  New  York ;  and  anything  we  can  do  to  increase  the 
facilities  between  this  city  and  that  will  help  the  business  of 
transportation. 

The  legislature  of  New  Jersey  has  done  what,  perhaps,  it 
had  the  right  to  do^  I  do  not  interfere  with  that,  and  I  do  not 
ask  this  House  to  legislate  for  New  Jersey,  but  for  the  Union. 
That  State  chartered  a  railroad  between  New  York  and  Phila- 
delphia, and  placed  limitations  and  restrictions  in  the  charter  of 
that  road.  It  provided  that  no  other  road  should  do  through 
business  between  these  two  cities.    That  is  the  point  with  which 


COMMERCE  BETWEEN  THE  STATES.  47 

we  have  to  deal  here.  Suppose  New  Jersey  had  made  a  law 
that  there  should  never  be  any  railroad  through  her  territory. 
If  she  were  isolated,  like  Florida,  she  probably  might  have 
made  sucli  a  law  without  wrong  to  her  sister  States,  and  it 
could  not  have  been  considered  an  interference  with  commerce 
between  the  States ;  but  if  New  Jersey,  located  as  she  is,  had 
passed  such  a  law,  would  any  one  deny  the  right  of  the  general 
government  to  order  or  permit  the  construction  of  a  new  road 
across  that  State  for  the  general  good  of  the  country? 

Let  us  take  a  stronger  case.  There  is  one  State,  —  New 
York,  —  whose  territory  cuts  the  Union  in  two.  Its  northern 
boundary  touches  the  British  dominions ;  its  southern,  the  sea ; 
and  it  forms  the  only  land  connection  between  New  England 
and  the  West  Suppose  New  York  should  decree  that  there 
should  forever  be  no  railroads  within  her  limits ;  then  no  man 
in  New  England  could  reach  the  West,  except  by  the  sea  or 
through  a  foreign  country.  Or  suppose,  instead  of  such  a  law 
as  that,  she  should  declare  that  there  should  be  but  one  rail- 
road across  her  territory,  —  but  one  highway  between  New 
England  and  the  West ;  and  suppose  that  that  road  could  do 
but  three  fourths  of  the  required  business ;  I  ask  if  that  would 
not  be  precisely  the  same  as  though  New  York  should  decree 
that  one  fourth  of  all  the  necessary  business  between  New  Eng- 
land and  the  West  should  never  be  done,  and  if  she  would  not 
thus  destroy  one  fourth  of  all  the  commerce  between  those  sec- 
tions of  the  country?  And  I  ask  any  gentleman  if,  in  that 
event,  he  would  not  consider  it  our  duty  to  give  the  rights  of 
New  England  and  the  West  a  hearing  on  this  floor,  —  to  re- 
voke that  decision  of  New  York,  and  declare  that  free  course 
should  be  given  to  the  commerce  between  the  Great  West  and 
the  New  England  States?  It  seems  to  me  that  no  sane  man 
can  doubt  it 

A  thing  precisely  similar  has  been  done  by  the  State  of  New 
Jersey.  She  does  not  span  the  continent;  she  does  not  reach 
from  the  ocean  to  Canada ;  but  she  does  lie  between  the  po- 
litical centre  and  the  commercial  centre  of  this  country ;  and 
it  happens  to  be  in  her  power,  if  we  do  not  exercise  a  superior 
power,  to  say  that  there  shall  be  no  road,  or  but  one,  between 
those  two  great  cities.  She  has  chosen  not  to  interdict  all 
roads,  but  to  say  there  shall  be  no  commerce  between  Wash- 
ington and  New  York  beyond  what  one  road  is  able  and  willing 


48  COMMERCE  BETWEEN  THE  STATES. 

to  carry  on.  Who  will  deny  that  this  is,  pro  tantOy  an  interdic- 
tion of  commerce,  —  a  decision  that  all  the  surplus  business 
over  and  above  what  the  Camden  and  Amboy  road  can  do, 
shall  not  be  done  at  all?  If  there  is  ever  offered  for  transpor- 
tation over  that  road  one  pound  of  freight  more  than  it  can 
carry,  and  carry  promptly.  New  Jersey  has  decided  by  solemn 
law  that  that  pound  of  freight  shall  not  be  carried  by  rail- 
road across  her  territory.  She  has  absolutely  interdicted  it. 
It  is  to  meet  this  case  that  the  power  of  Congress  is  now 
invoked. 

Now,  what  constitjutional  powers  do  we  possess  in  this  be- 
half? If  gentlemen  will  take  time  to  read  the  very  able  report 
of  my  colleague  on  the  Military  Committee,  the  gentleman  from 
Connecticut,^  they  will  see  that  five  distinct  times  has  the  Con- 
gress of  the  United  States  affirmed  and  exercised  the-  right  to 
establish  military  and  post  roads,  and  to  regulate  commerce 
between  the  States,  by  permitting  the  opening  of  roads  and  the 
construction  of  bridges.  *And  not  only  so,  but  on  one  memo- 
rable occasion,  fresh  in  all  our  recollections.  Congress  actually 
annulled  a  decision  of  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States 
on  a  similar  question.  The  Supreme  Court  declared  the 
Wheeling  bridge  a  public  nuisance;  decided  that  it  existed 
without  sufficient  warrant  of  law,  and  should  be  removed;  and 
immediately  on  the  rendering  of  that  decision  Congress  passed 
a  law  declaring  the  structure  a  lawful  one,  and  part  of  a  post- 
road,  any  law  of  any  State  or  decision  of  any  court  to  the  con- 
trary notwithstanding.  Will  the  gentleman  from  Pennsylvania  * 
who  has  just  taken  his  seat  claim  that  this  was  an  indignity  to 
the  Supreme  Court?  He  says  that  the  legislation  now  pro- 
posed is  an  indignity  to  the  legislature  and  the  judiciary  of  New 
Jersey.  New  Jersey  has  risen  very  high  in  her  dignity  if  the 
Congress  of  the  United  States  can  insult  her  by  legislating  as  it 
has  done  five  times  before.  If  New  Jersey  is  insulted  by  this 
legislation,  what  will  the  gentleman  say  of  the  Supreme  Court 
of  the  United  States,  whose  decision  was  at  once  revoked  by 
act  of  Congress?  I  know  of  no  power  on  earth  that  should 
possess  more  dignity  than  the  sovereignty  of  the  American 
people  in  Congress  assembled.  I  know  of  no  body  politic, 
corporate  or  national,  that  can  be  insulted  by  the  legitimate 
and  constitutional  action  of  this  body. 

^  Mr.  Deming.  «  Mr.  Broomall. 


COMMERCE  BETWEEN  THE  STATES.  49 

Mr.  Broomall.  The  gentleman  is  certainly  mistaken  in  supposing 
that  I  claimed  the  want  of  power  in  Congress  to  make  such  enactments, 
or  that  I  stated  that  the  dignity  of  the  State  of  New  Jersey  would  be  in- 
sulted. I  claimed  no  dignity  for  New  Jersey,  and  denied  no  power  to 
Congress ;  I  merely  denied  the  policy  of  amending  New  Jersey  legis- 
lation by  act  of  Congress. 

If  the  gentleman's  statement  of  his  own  position  be  correct, — 
and  of  course  I  accept  it,  but  I  distinctly  understood  him  other- 
wise,—  I  still  do  not  agree  with  him  that  we  should  never  inter- 
fere with  and  amend  things  that  are  wrong.  I  take  it  to  be  our 
special  duty  here  to  do  justice ;  and  if  any  State  has  usurped 
the  prerogatives  of  this  body,  it  is  our  duty  to  correct  that  in- 
justice by  amending  or  abrogating  its  action.  I  am  very  glad 
that  the  gentleman  has  taken  away  all  suspicion  that  he  denies 
the  power  of  Congress  to  legislate  on  this  subject. 

Now,  what  are  the  facts  in  relation  to  this  New  Jersey  rail- 
road ?  That  it  is  a  complete  and  sweeping  monopoly,  no  man 
can  deny.  That  it  has  furnished  the  revenues  and  paid  the  ex- 
penses of  that  State  for  many  years,  is  undeniable.  Not  a  dol- 
lar of  tax  for  the  current  expenses  of  her  government  did  New 
Jersey  levy  for  years  until  the  war  began.  The  Camden  and 
Amboy  Railroad  Company  has  paid  $2,600,000  into  the  treas- 
ury of  the  State  since  it  received  its  charter.  And  that  has  been 
collected,  not  on  the  local  business,  but  on  the  through  business 
from  Philadelphia  to  New  York,  nine  tenths  of  it  the  business 
of  persons  not  citizens  of  New  Jersey.  Disguise  it  under  any 
color  you  please.  New  Jersey's  taxes  have  been  paid  by  citizens 
of  other  States.  Her  burdens  have  been  borne  by  citizens  of 
Pennsylvania,  of  New  York,  of  the  West,  of  New  England,  and 
not  by  her  own  citizens. 

It  is  very  true  that,  if  a  citizen  of  New  Jersey  chances  to  be 
in  Philadelphia,  and  buys  his  ticket  to  New  York,  he  pays  his 
ten  cents  of  tax  to  the  State ;  but  it  is  also  true  that,  if  his  jour- 
ney is  wholly  within  New.Jersey,  he  pays  less  per  mile  than  he 
would  as  a  through  passenger.  This  has  been  a  crying  shame 
before  the  people  of  the  country.  Men  of  justice  and  equity 
have  condemned  it  everywhere.  I  say  it  without  any  ill  feeling 
toward  New  Jersey  or  her  people.  It  has  brought  a  cloud  over 
the  fair  fame  of  the  State,  which,  were  I  a  representative  from 
the  State,  I  should  be  the  first  to  desire  to  see  removed. 

Now,  what  is  the  purpose  of  the  bill  before  us?     A  line  of 

VOL.  I.  4 


50  COMMERCE  BETWEEN  THE  STATES. 

road  has  been  constructed  from  Raritan  Bay  to  Philadelphia,  or 
rather  to  the  middle  of  the  river,  opposite  Philadelphia.  The 
Supreme  Court  of  New  Jersey  has  decided,  first,  that  the  road 
is  a  legal  structure.  Let  that  be  noted.  But  it  has  also  de- 
clared, that,  although  the  road  is  a  legal  structure,  no  man  can 
ride  over  it ;  that  no  freight  can  be  carried  over  it  from  Phila- 
delphia to  New  York.  The  court  has  sealed  up  the  two  ends 
of  the  road.  It  has  sealed  it  at  the  middle  of  the  river  oppo- 
site Philadelphia.  It  has  sealed  it  at  high-water  mark,  on  Rari- 
tan Bay.  Now,  what  is  asked  of  Congress?  We  are  asked  to 
commence  at  the  State  line  and  unseal  one  end  of  the  road; 
and  we  are  asked  to  go  to  high-water  mark,  at  the  boundary  of 
the  ocean,  which  is  under  our  exclusive  jurisdiction,  and  unseal 
the  other  end  of  the  road.     That  is  what  we  are  asked  to  do. 

But  I  am  informed  that  the  morning  hour  has  expired.  I 
have  a  few  more  words  to  add  when  the  consideration  of  this 
bill  is  resumed. 


On  the  31st  of  March  the  debate  was  renewed,  and  Mr.  Garfield  con- 
tinued as  follows  :  —  \ 

Mr.  Speaker, — When  this  subject  was  last  before  the  House, 
I  submitted  a  few  remarks,  but  the  morning  hour  expired  before 
I  concluded.  I  then  undertook  to  show,  by  the  reports  of  the 
Quartermaster-General  and  the  Postmaster-General,  that  oiir 
communications  between  this  city  and  the  city  of  New  York 
are  notoriously  insufficient  for  the  wants  of  the  government  and 
the  general  public.  That  statement  was  demonstrated  by  quo- 
tations from  official  reports.  I  then  made  the  point  that,  if  any 
State  prohibited  the  construction  of  more  than  one  line  of  com- 
munication, and  that  line  was  not  sufficient  for  all  the  business 
required,  it  was,  pro  tanto,  an  inhibition  of  transportation  across 
that  State.  I  showed  conclusively,  I  think,  that  such  was  the  fact 
in  regard  to  transportation  across  the  State  of  New  Jersey,  and 
the  prohibition  which  now  exists  is,  in -fact,  a  refusal  to  grant  the 
necessary  rights  of  transit  across  the  territory  of  that  State,  and 
a  direct  interference  with  commerce  between  the  States. 

I  know  that  the  gentleman  who  preceded  me^  stated  that, 
while  he  was  in  favor  of  an  "  air  line,"  or  direct  route  across 
New  Jersey,  he  was  not  in  favor  of  an  "  elbow  line,"  or  circuit- 
ous route.     I  answer,  if  the  route  is  a  circuitous  one,  and  less 

^  Mr.  Broomall. 


COMMERCE  BETWEEN  THE  STATES.  51 

eligible  for  the  purposes  of  commerce,  it  cannot  be  competitive 
unless  transportation  by  the  usual  route  is  insufficient  If  you 
allow  that  the  present  road  is  insufficient,  why  not  permit  the 
use  of  a  circuitous  road  rather  than  cripple  the  commerce  of 
the  country?  But  the  new  road  is  competitive,  because  the  old 
one  is  not  sufficient.  The  government  has  transported  over 
the  elbow  "  route,"  during  the  past  season,  3 1 ,394  United  States 
troops,  620  horses,  and  108  car-loads  of  baggage  for  the  troops 
thus  transported.  The  road  is  a  competitive  route,  and  a  New 
Jersey  court  has  so  decided.  Why  competitive?  Because,  in 
railroad  travelling,  time  is  a  more  important  element  than  dis- 
tance, and  the  running  time  of  the  new  road  between  Philadel- 
phia and  New  York  is  ten  minutes  less  than  that  of  the  Camden 
and  Amboy  between  the  same  places.  It  is  true  the  distance  is 
twenty-three  miles  greater,  yet,  because  of  the  sparsely  settled 
country  through  which  it  passes,  there  are  fewer  stopping- 
places,  fewer  hindrances  to  travel,  and  hence  it  is  a  quicker 
route.  It  does  its  business  more  rapidly  and  promptly  than  the 
Camden  and  Amboy. 

The  present  monopoly  complains  that  greater  facilities  for 
transportation  have  been  afforded  to  the  American  people.  It 
has  itself  furnished  testimony  of  its  own  inability  to  meet  all  the 
demands  of  commerce.  In  a  document  which  its  directors  have 
circulated  among  the  members  of  this  House,  they  attempt  to 
show  that  they  have  filled  all  orders  promptly  and  thoroughly. 
One  of  their  own  witnesses,  however,  a  captain  in  the  army, 
says :  — 

"  In  answer  to  the  several  interrogations  contained  in  the  pencil  memo- 
randum which  you  handed  me  yesterday  I  have  to  state  as  follows,  viz. : — 

"  Fourth  interrogation.  —  Camden  and  Amboy  Railroad  could  have 
carried  more  troops  at  any  time  than  were  offered.  I  have  no  means  of 
knowing  how  many  troops  could  have  been  carried  if  the  whole  facilities 
of  that  road  had  been  given  to  the  government ;  but  the  demands  at  times 
have  been  very  heavy,  probably  more  than  any  one  road  in  this  or  any 
other  country  could  have  met  without  considerable  delay.  Troops  have 
often  been  sent  by  steamer  to  Washington  to  relieve  the  railroads. 

"  D.  Stimson, 
Captain  and  Assistant  Quartermaster,^* 

Who  is  it  that  complains  of  the  increased  facilities  of  the  new 
road?  Who  comes  into  court  and  claims  to  be  aggrieved?  It 
is  the  Camden  and  Amboy  Railroad,  and  no  other. 


52  COMMERCE  BETWEEN  THE  STATES. 

I  hold  in  my  hand  a  book  which  ought  to  be  called  the  Regis- 
ter of  Greatness  and  Official  Dignitaries,  or  rather  the  Blue 
Book  of  the  State  of  New  Jersey.  It  is  a  collection  of  the 
official  reports  of  the  Camden  and  Amboy  monopoly  from  the 
formation  of  the  company  to  the  present  time,  and  I  venture  to 
say  that  such  another  book  cannot  be  found  in  America.  The 
monopoly  has  taken  New  Jersey  under  its  protection.  It  praises, 
admonishes,  or  censures  New  Jersey,  according  as  she  follows  or 
disregards  the  standard  of  the  Camden  and  Amboy  monopoly's 
theory  of  political  economy.  I  venture  to  say  that  a  parallel  to 
the  records  of  this  book  cannot  be  found  in  the  history  of  the 
republic.     I  will  present  some  of  the  facts  which  it  contains. 

In  1 846  the  monopoly  issued  an  address  to  the  people  of  New 
Jersey.  It  tells  them  that  New  Jersey  is  vastly  superior  to  her 
sister  States  in  the  management  of  public  concerns ;  it  goes  on 
to  say  that  Pennsylvania  and  New  York  have  foolishly  expended 
money  in  public  improvements  and  developing  their  material 
wealth,  and  then  concludes,  with  an  air  of  triumph,  as  follows : 
"  New  Jersey  has  no  coal  lands  or  salt  springs  to  be  converted 
into  monopolies ;  but  she  has  a  most  enviable  geographical  po- 
sition in  the  Union,  which  it  is  her  duty  to  improve  for  the 
benefit  of  her  citizens.  She  has  done  so  in  the  manner  deemed 
most  advisable  and  profitable,  and  has  reason  to  be  proud  of 
the  wisdom  which  dictated  her  policy." 

She  has  "  improved  her  geographical  position  "  by  creating  a 
sweeping  monopoly,  and  taxing  all  freight  and  passengers  be- 
tween the  great  commercial  cities  of  Pennsylvania  and  New 
York.  The  monopoly  congratulates  New  Jersey  on  her  cunning 
device  to  raise  taxes  without  cost  to  herself. 

This  monopoly  is  sometimes  as  "  'umble  "  as  Uriah  Heep,  and 
at  others  as  proud  as  Lucifer.  When  it  wants  favors  from  the 
legislature  of  New  Jersey,  it  is  very  humble ;  but  when  the  State 
wants  favors  from  it,  it  is  exceedingly  haughty.  In  i860,  the 
monopoly  came  before  the  country  for  a  loan  of  $6,000,000. 
To  secure  it  on  reasonable  terms  it  became  necessary  to  exhibit 
the  resources  of  the  company.  To  do  this,  the  company  issued 
one  of  its  proclamations  to  the  people  of  New  Jersey.  Let  it  be 
remembered  that  this  monopoly  tells  the  people  of  New  Jersey 
that  it  relies  chiefly  on  New  York  and  Philadelphia  for  the 
money  it  makes.  It  exhibits  the  condition  of  the  joint  com- 
panies as  follows :  — 


COMMERCE  BETWEEN  THE  STATES.  53 

"  I.  The  peculiar  advantage  of  their  geographical  position.  2.  The 
extent  and  number  of  railway  lines  now  belonging  to  the  joint  companies, 
compared  with  their  single  line  of  sixty-one  miles  in  1834.  3.  The  reve- 
nues of  the  companies  now,  compared  with  the  estimate  of  probable 
revenue  in  the  infancy  of  their  enterprise. 

"  The  cities  of  New  York  and  Philadelphia,  which  are  connected  to- 
gether by  our  canal  and  railways,  are  still  in  advance  of  all  other  cities  in 
the  United  States  in  wealth,  population,  and  commercial  advantages.  It 
has  been  upon  their  growth  and  prosperity  that  we  have  chiefly  relied  for 
revenue  and  its  progressive  increase.  This  reliance  has  not  been  indulged 
unwisely. 

"In  1834  the  net  income  of  the  company  was  $450,000.  By  refer- 
ence to  the  annual  sworn  report  of  the  State  Directors,  made  in  January, 
i860,  to  the  legislature  of  New  Jersey,  it  will  be  seen  that  the  net  in- 
come of  the  Camden  and  Amboy  Railroad  Company  from  their  differ- 
ent through  lines  of  railway  was  $91 1,242,  and  that  of  the  canal  company 
"^^  tzZSA^9\  in  all,  1 1,246,371;  being  nearly  three  times  greater  in 
amount  than  the  original  estimates  of  income  in  1834 

"  The  population  of  the  United  States  doubles  in  a  little  over  twenty- 
three  years,  and  that  of  the  cities  of  New  York  and  Philadelphia  in  about 
eighteen  years ;  but  the  revenues  of  the  joint  companies  increase  in  a 
ratio  exceeding  that  of  the  increase  of  the  population  of  New  York  and 
Riiladelphia ;  and  when  in  twenty-five  years  New  York  and  Philadelphia 
may  each  contain  two  million  people,  and  the  United  States  sixty  million, 
the  annual  revenues  of  the  joint  companies  may  be  safely  estimated  at 
$5,000,000. 

"  It  is  no  exaggeration  to  say,  that  there  is  not  on  the  continent  of 
North  America  any  railway  or  canal  franchise  so  valuable  as  that  of  the 
joint  companies.  They  possess  a  capacious  canal,  itself  worth  more  this 
day  than  the  whole  amount  which  we  propose  to  borrow  upon  the  secu- 
rity of  the  united  companies. 

"  They  are  proprietors  likewise  of  one  entire  through  line,  and  of  two 
thirds  of  a  second  line  of  railway  connecting  two  great  cities,  the  com- 
mercial emporiums  of  the  Western  world.  They  have  a  controlling  prop- 
erty also  in  a  line  of  railway,  more  than  one  hundred  miles  in  extent, 
reaching  into  the  coal  and  iron  fields  of  Pennsylvania,  the  products  of 
which  annually  augment  with  the  unbounded  demand,  which  is  ever  in 
advance  of  their  supply. 

"  The  interest  of  the  State  of  New  Jersey  is  identified  with  that  of  the 
joint  companies,  as  we  have  said  before,  and  she  is  relieved  from  the 
necessity  of  imposing  any  State  tax  by  the  ample  revenue  which  she 
derives  fix)m  the  companies. 

"  New  Jersey  is  distinguished  for  the  conservative  character  of  her 
people  and  her  legislation ;  and  when  her  citizens  have  invested  their 


S4  COMMERCE  BETWEEN  THE  STATES. 

capital  in  works  designed  for  the  public  benefit,  she  has  always  refused 
to  impair  the  value  of  franchise  devoted  to  such  objects  by  the  creation 
of  a  rival.  Efforts  indeed  have,  within  the  past  thirty  years,  been  some- 
times made  to  induce  the  legislature  of  New  Jersey  to  grant  charters  for 
rival  railroads,  but  invariably  without  success.  What  could  not  be  done 
when,  in  the  infancy  of  the  companies,  the  revenue  of  the  State  derived 
from  them  was  small,  need  excite*  no  apprehensions  now,  when  the  whole 
expense  of  the  State  government  is  provided  for  from  the  income  fur- 
nished by  the  business  of  our  railroads  and  canal." 

Was  ever  anything  so  barefaced?  The  monopoly  comes  here 
boasting  of  wealth  unprecedented,  of  rights  and  franchises  un- 
paralleled, and  of  drawing  its  chief  wealth  from  citizens  outside 
of  New  Jersey,  because  that  State  has  a  geographical  position 
which  enables  her  to  make  money  out  of  the  cities  of  other 
States  I  And  this  is  the  party  which  comes  here  and  asks  us  to 
forbid  the  Raritan  road  to  exercise  the  right  of  transportation 
between  New  York  and  Philadelphia ! 

How  have  the  joint  companies  managed  their  matters  and 
made  their  money?  The  charter  of  their  road  prohibited  them 
from  charging  more  than  three  dollars  for  a  passenger  fare  be- 
tween Philadelphia  and  New  York,  and  yet  from  the  year  1835  to 
1849  they  charged  four  dollars  in  the  face  of  the  law.  In  1842, 
however,  the  legislature  of  New  Jersey  determined  that  one  half 
of  all  that  the  company  charged  above  three  dollars  should  be 
paid  into  the  treasury  of  the  State ;  in  other  words,  the  State 
said  to  the  company,  "  If  you  will  steal,  give  us  half  the  steal- 
ings ;  we  really  cannot  prevent  you,  but  if  you  are  bound  to  do 
it,  give  us  half  the  proceeds."     But  they  never  did  even  that. 

I  will  call  the  attention  of  the  House  to  another  fact.  This 
line  of  roads  between  New  York  and  Philadelphia  is  ninety  miles 
long,  and  the  passenger  fare  is  now  three  dollars.  I  desire  to 
compare  this  with  some  other  rates  of  fare  as  I  find  them  quoted 
in  a  daily  journal :  New  York  to  Philadelphia,  90  miles,  $3 ; 
Hudson  River  to  Rhinebeck,  91  miles,  $1.80;  Harlem  to  Albany, 
154  miles,  $3  ;  Erie  to  Port  Jervis,  87  miles,  $2.10;  Lackawanna 
to  Stroudsburg,  90  miles,  $2.55  ;  New  Haven  and  Hartford  to 
Meriden,  94  miles,  $2.34;  New  Haven  and  New  London  to 
Guilford,  94  miles,  $2.35.  All  these  routes  save  one  are  longer 
than  the  Camden  and  Amboy,  and  some  of  them  charge  but  a 
little  more  than  half  the  fare.  The  road  from  Harlem  to  Albany 
is  one  hundred  and  fifty-four  miles  long,  and  charges  just  three 


COMMERCE  BETWEEN  THE  STATES.  55 

dollars,  while  this  New  Jersey  monopoly  charges  the  same  for 
ninety  miles. 

The  companies  have  violated  all  the  common  laws  of  whole- 
sale and  retail  trade.  It  is  generally  understood  that  a  pound 
of  coffee  costs  more  pro  rata  than  a  thousand  pounds.  But  if 
you  travel  ten  miles  in  New  Jersey,  you  are  charged  less  per 
mile  than  if  you  travel  ninety  miles.  The  local  rates  within  the 
limits  of  the  State  are  not  half  so  great  as  the  through  rates 
between  New  York  and  Philadelphia.  It  is  by  this  kind  of  out- 
rageous violation  of  all  the  laws  of  trade  that  New  Jersey  has 
made  money  out  of  this  country. 

Now  what  does  this  monopoly  ask?  Here  is  the  prayer  its 
attorney  makes  to  the  Chancellor  of  New  Jersey :  — 

"  My  first  point  was  that  the  road  had  been  used,  by  their  own  admis- 
sion, for  the  transportation  of  soldiers  and  munitions  of  wai ;  the  fact 
that  they  allege  as  an  ample  and  sufficient  excuse,  is  that  this  was  done  by 
order  of  the  Secretary  of  War.  I  insist  that,  no  matter  by  whose  order  it 
was  done,  it  was  a  transportation  of  passenger  and  freight  by  railway 
across  the  State  and  between  the  cities,  in  every  sense  of  the  words. 
....  By  which  New  Jersey  is  robbed  of  her  tax  of  ten  cents  on  each 
passenger.  ....  I  say  it  is  no  defence  whatever,  if  they  have  suc- 
ceeded in  obtaining  an  order  of  the  Secretary  of  War,  when  we  call  upon 
them  to  give  us  the  money  they  made  by  it ;  and  that  is  one  of  our  calls. 
Ihey  have  no  right  to  get  an  order  to  deprive  the  State  of  New  Jersey  of 
the  right  of  transit  duty,  which  is  her  adopted  policy." 

In  other  words^,  this  gigantic  monopoly,  that  reaches  into  the 
heart  of  Pennsylvania  and  other  States  and  draws  its  life-blood 
from  them,  demands  that  the  new  road,  which  has  served  the 
government  in  the  transportation  of  troops  and  munitions  of 
war,  shall  pay  over  all  its  earnings  to  its  grasping  rival. 

What  answer  did  the  Chancellor  of  New  Jersey  make  to  this 
demand?  I  have  it  here.^  He  decided,  in  the  first  place,  that 
the  Raritan  road  is  a  legal  structure  from  Camden  to  Port  Mon- 
mouth,—  from  the  western  to  the  eastern  line  of  the  State.  In 
the  next  place,  that  no  passengers  or  freight  shall  be  taken  over 
it  from  Philadelphia  to  New  York.  What  kind  of  a  decision  is 
that?  Is  not  New  Jersey  thus  legislating  for  New  York  and 
Philadelphia?  She  says  that  a  man  may  go  by  this  route  from 
one  border  of  the  State  to  the  other,  but  not  beyond.  The  road 
is  a  legal  one,  but  no  man  can  pass  over  it  and  across  the  State 

1  See  N.  J   Eq.  Reports,  i  Green,  321-382. 


L 


56  COMMERCE  BETWEEN  THE  STATES. 

without  robbing  her  of  her  ten  cents  tax !  That  is  the  decision 
of  New  Jersey ;  and  if  it  is  not  legislation  for  New  York  and 
Pennsylvania,  there  can  be  no  such  thing  as  interference  with 
the  legislation  of  other  States.  Under  the  Chancellor's  decision, 
the  Raritan  company  has  been  compelled  to  instruct  its  agents 
to  sell  no  tickets  unless  they  know,  of  their  own  knowledge,  that 
the  party  purchasing  is  not  going  through  the  State.  The  re- 
sult is  to  destroy  at  least  one  third  of  the  local  business ;  but 
the  company  is  compelled  to  do  it  to  save  itself  from  further 
injunction. 

It  has  been  asked  why  this  matter  comes  here.  Because, 
in  obeying  the  orders  of  the  Secretary  of  War  in  transport- 
ing troops  and  munitions  of  war,  the  Raritan  road  has  been 
wronged ;  and  it  comes  to  the  Congress  of  the  nation  for  re- 
dress. The  Military  Committee  has  recommended  that  it  shall 
have  redress. 

I  believe  no  gentleman  here  will  deny  that  Congress  has  am- 
ple power  to  establish  military  and  post  roads,  to  maintain  the 
government,  and  feed  its  armies.  But  there  is  another  power 
which  should  not  be  overlooked.  I  mean  the  power  to  regulate 
commerce  between  the  States.  That  power  has  been  repeat- 
edly declared  by  the  courts  to  reside  exclusively  in  the  Con- 
gress of  the  United  States.  It  was  so  decided  in  Gibbons  v, 
Ogden,^  in  the  Passenger  Cases,^  and  in  the  Wheeling  Bridge 
Case.^  It  is  a  decision  so  frequently  made  that  no  gentleman  of 
any  legal  learning  will  risk  his  reputation  by  a*  denial  of  it. 

But,  Mr.  Speaker,  we  have  something  more  than  the  mere 
statement  of  the  right.  We  have  the  admission  of  the  State  of 
New  Jersey  that  Congress  has  this  right ;  and  if  any  person  or 
any  power  on  earth  may  come  in  to  deny  it,  New  Jersey  is  by 
her  own  act  forever  estopped  from  making  that  denial.  I  call 
your  attention  to  a  law  of  New  Jersey  passed  February  4,  183 1. 
In  the  sixth  section  of  that  act  she  says :  — 

"  Be  it  macted^  That  when  any  other  railroad,  or  roads,  for  the  trans- 
portation of  passengers  and  property  between  New  York  and  Philadel- 
phia, across  this  State,  shall  be  constructed  and  used  for  that  purpose, 
under  or  by  virtue  of  any  law  of  this  State  or  the  United  States^  author- 
izing or  recognizing  said  road,  that  then  and  in  that  case  the  said  divi- 
dends shall  be  no  longer  payable  to  the  State,  and  the  said  stock  shall  be 
re-transferred  to  the  company  by  the  treasurer  of  this  State." 

1  9  Wheaton,  i.       '7  Howard,  283.       •  13  Howard,  518,  and  18  Howard,  421. 


COMMERCE  BETWEEN  THE  STATES.  57 

This  law  required  the  acceptance  of  the  company  to  make  it 
valid,  and  the  company  did  accept  it  four  days  after  its  passage. 
A  solemn  compact  —  New  Jersey  is  addicted  to  the  use  of  that 
word  —  was  thus  made  between  the  State  and  the  company, 
that  when  Congress  shall  see  fit  to  authorize  and  establish  a 
road,  or  to  recognize  one  already  established,  then  the  Camden 
and  Amboy  Company  shall  lose  its  special  privileges.  The 
parties  not  only  admit  that  Congress  may  do  it,  but  they  unite 
in  a  solemn  compact  in  which  that  very  action  of  Congress  is  a 
condition.  That,  sir,  is  the  thing  I  desire  Congress  now  to  do ; 
when  it  is  done,  the  monopoly  will  be  dead  forever. 

New  Jersey  took  another  step  in  the  same  direction  in  1854. 
She  extended  the  monopoly  charter  ten  years.  The  law  by 
which  it  is  extended  is  prefaced  by  a  most  extraordinary  pre- 
amble, and  that  may  be  thus  summed  up :  "  Whereas  the  legis- 
lature of  New  Jersey  has  granted  to  the  Camden  and  Amboy 
Railroad  Company  special  and  exclusive  privileges,  in  consid- 
eration of,"  etc.,  etc *'  And  whereas  the  extinguishment 

of  these  privileges  is  a  matter  of  great  public  importance: 
Therefore,  Be  it  enacted,"  etc. 

Mark  that !  The  extinguishment  of  these  privileges  is  a  mat" 
ter  of  great  public  importance  ;  therefore  we  extend  this  monopoly 
for  ten  years !  I  do  not  very  much  admire  the  logic  of  this 
law,  but  I  do  admire  the  preamble  exceedingly.  It  acknowl- 
edges, by  the  voice  of  New  Jersey,  that  it  is  a  matter  of  great 
public  concern  that  this  exclusive  privilege  shall  be  extin- 
guished. I  hope  Congress  will  listen  to  the  desire  of  New  Jer- 
sey, and  aid  her  in  this  good  work. 

Since  this  bill  has  been  before  us,  and  since  I  last  had  the 
honor  to  address  the  House,  we  have  heard  from  the  Governor 
and  the  legislature  of  New  Jersey  in  regard  to  this  bill,  I  ask 
the  indulgence  of  the  House  while  I  read  some  portions  of  the 
proclamation  of  his  Excellency. 

"  In  the  consideration  of  this  question  two  inquiries  naturally  arise : 
First,  would  the  proposed  action  of  Congress,  if  consummated,  affect  the 
pecuniary  interest  of  this  State  ?  Secondly,  and  chiefly^  would  such  action 
in6inge  upon  the  sovereignty  of  the  State  ?   .  .  .  . 

"  It  is  for  you  to  inquire  whether  the  proposed  action  of  Congress 
would  affect  the  interest  of  the  State  in  the  stock,  dividends,  or  transit 
duties  derived  from  said  companies. 

"  But  the  pecuniary  interest  of  the  State  is  of  litde  importance  in  com- 


58  COMMERCE  BETWEEN  THE  STATES. 

parison  with  the  principle  involved,  and  I  therefore  direct  your  attention 
particularly  to  the  second  inquiry,  before  mentioned.  New  Jersey  is  a 
sovereign  State,  and  it  is  our  duty,  by  every  lawful  means,  to  protect  and 
defend  her  sovereignty,  and  to  transmit  unimpaired  to  posterity  all  her 
rights  as  they  were  received  by  her  from  our  fathers.  In  the  exercise  of 
her  rightful  powers  she  may  build,  maintain,  and  manage  lines  of  public 
travel  within  her  territory,  and  she  may  grant  to  others  the  right  to  con- 
tract works  under  such  regulations  and  upon  such  conditions  as  she  may 
see  fit  to  impose.  When  the  States  entered  into  the  national  compact 
they  yielded  to  the  general  government  the  right  to  establish  post-roads 
for  the  conveyance  of  mails,  and  power  to  construct  military  roads  in 
time  of  war,  for  the  purpose  of  transportation  of  troops ;  but  even  these 
roads  must  be  operated  by  the  government,  and  not  through  the  agency 
or  for  the  benefit  of  private  corporations.  A  law  of  Congress  to  exceed 
the  powers  granted  by  the  States  infringes  upon  the  reserved  rights,  and 
detracts  from  the  State  legislatures  a  portion  of  their  rightful  authority. 

"  Let  it  be  distinctly  understood  by  those  who  would  inflict  an  indig- 
nity upon  our  State,  that  while  New  Jersey  will  comply  with  every  legal 
obligation,  and  will  respect  and  protect  the  rights  of  all,  she  will  not  per- 
mit any  infringement  of  her  rights  without  resorting  to  every  lawful  means 
to  prevent  it. 

"  Joel  Parker." 

Mr.  Speaker,  this  lifls  our  subject  above  corporations  and 
monopolies  to  the  full  height  of  a  national  question ;  I  might 
almost  call  it  a  question  of  loyalty  or  disloyalty.  His  Excel- 
lency will  find  his  political  doctrines  much  more  ably  and  ele- 
gantly stated  in  Calhoun's  nullification  teachings  of  1833,  than 
in  his  own  message. 

He  says  New  Jersey  is  a  sovereign  State.  I  pause  there  for  a 
moment.  I  believe  that  no  man  will  ever  be  able  to  chronicle 
all  the  evils  that  have  resulted  to  this  nation  from  the  abuse  of 
the  words  "  sovereign  "  and  "  sovereignty."  What  is  this  thing 
called  "State  Sovereignty"?  Nothing  more  false  was  ever 
uttered  in  the  halls  of  legislation  than  that  any  State  of  this 
Union  is  sovereign.  Refresh  your  recollections  of  "  sovereign- 
ty "  as  defined  in  the  elementary  text-books  of  law.  Speaking 
of  the  sovereignty  of  nations,  Blackstone  says :  "  However  they 
began,  by  what  right  so  ever  they  subsist,  there  is  and  must  be 
in  all  of  them  a  supreme,  irresistible,  absolute,  uncontrolled 
authority,  in  which  the  jura  sutntni  imperii,  or  rights  of  sover- 
eignty, reside." 

Do   these   elements   belong  to   any  State  of  this  republic? 


COMMERCE  BETWEEN  THE  STATES.  59 

Sovereignty  has  the  right  to  declare  war.  Can  New  Jersey  de- 
clare war?  Sovereignty  has  the  right  to  conclude  peace.  Can 
New  Jersey  conclude  peace  ?  Sovereignty  has  the  right  to  coin 
money.  If  the  legislature  of  New  Jersey  should  authorize 
and  command  one  of  its  citizens  to  coin  half  a  dollar,  that 
man,  if  he  obeyed,  would  be  locked  up  in  a  felon's  cell  for  the 
crime  of  counterfeiting  the  coin  of  the  real  sovereign.  Sover- 
eignty makes  treaties  with  foreign  nations.  Can  New  Jersey 
make  treaties?  Sovereignty  regulates  commerce  with  foreign 
States,  and  puts  ships  in  commission  upon  the  high  seas. 
Should  a  ship  set  sail  under  the  authority  of  New  Jersey,  it 
would  be  seized  as  a  smuggler,  forfeited,  and  sold.  Sover- 
ignty  has  a  flag.  But,  thank  God !  New  Jersey  has  no  flag, 
Ohio  has  no  flag.  No  loyal  State  fights  under  the  "  lone 
star,"  the  "  rattlesnake,"  or  the  "  palmetto-tree."  No  loyal 
State  has  any  flag  but  the  "  banner  of  beauty  and  glory,"  the 
flag  of  the  Union. 

These  are  the  indispensable  elements  of  sovereignty.  New 
Jersey  has  not  one  of  them.  The  term  can  be  applied  only 
to  the  separate  States  in  a  very  limited  and  restricted  sense, 
referring  mainly  to  municipal  and  police  regulations.  The 
rights  of  the  States  should  be  jealously  guarded  and  defended. 
But  to  claim  that  sovereignty  in  its  full  sense  and  mean- 
ing belongs  to  the  States,  is  nothing  better  than  rankest 
treason. 

Look  again  at  this  document  of  the  Governor  of  New  Jersey. 
He  says  the  States  entered  into  the  national  compact.  National 
compact !  I  had  supposed  that  no  Governor  of  a  loyal  State 
would  parade  this  dead  dogma  of  Nullification  and  Secession, 
which  was  buried  by  Webster  on  the  i6th  of  February,  1833. 
There  was  no  such  thing  as  a  sovereign  State  making  a  com- 
pact called  a  Constitution.  The  very  language  of  the  Consti- 
tution is  decisive :  "  VVe,  the  people  of  the  United  States,  do 
ordain  and  establish  this  Constitution."  The  States  did  not 
make  a  compact  to  be  broken  when  any  one  pleased,  but  the 
people  ordained  and  established  the  Constitution  of  a  sovereign 
republic ;  and  woe  be  to  any  corporation  or  State  that  raises 
its  hand  against  it! 

The  message  closes  with  a  determination  to  resist  the  legisla- 
tion here  proposed.  This  itself  is  another  reason  why  I  ask 
this  Congress  to  exercise  its  right,  and  thus  rebuke  this  spirit  of 


6o  COMMERCE  BETWEEN  THE  STATES, 

nullification.  The  gentleman  from  Pennsylvania  ^  tells  us  that 
New  Jersey  is  a  loyal  State,  and  thousands  of  her  citizens  are 
in  the  army.  I  am  proud  of  all  the  citizens  of  New  Jersey 
who  are  fighting  in  our  army.  They  are  not  fighting  for  New 
Jersey,  nor  for  the  Camden  and  Amboy  monopoly,  but  for  the 
Union,  as  against  the  nullification  or  rebellion  of  any  State. 
Patriotic  men  of  New  Jersey  in  the  army  and  at  home  are 
groaning  under  this  tyrannical  monopoly,  and  I  hold  it  to 
be  the  high  right  and  duty  of  this  body  to  strike  off  their 
fetters. 

Congress  has  done  similar  work  before.  It  did  it  in  the 
case  of  the  Wheeling  Bridge  across  the  Ohio.  There  is  a  still 
stronger  case.  A  corporation  spanned  the  Ohio  River  at  Steu- 
benville  under  a  charter  granted  by  the  State  of  Virginia,  but 
with  conditions  appended  which  could  not  be  fulfilled.  The 
corporation  came  to  Congress,  and  asked  that  the  bridge  might 
be  declared  a  legal  structure  and  part  of  a  post-road.  By  sol- 
emn law  Congress  declared  it  to  be  a  post-road;  and  no  law 
of  the  State  of  Virginia  or  of  the  State  of  Ohio  to  the  contrary 
can  interfere  with  it.  We  have  used  this  power  hitherto,  but 
we  have  never  before  been  called  upon  to  exercise  it  in  any 
case  so  deserving  as  that  which  gave  rise  to  this  bill. 

^  Mr.  Broomall. 


CABINET    OFFICERS    IN    CONGRESS. 

SPEECH  DEUVERED  IN  THE  HOUSE  OF  REPRESENTATIVES, 

January  26,  1865. 


On  the  8th  of  February,  1864,  Mr.  G.  H.  Pendleton  introduced  into 
the  House  of  Representatives  a  joint  resolution  to  provide  that  the  heads 
of  the  Executive  Departments  might  occupy  seats  on  the  floor  of  that 
body,  which  was  twice  read,  and  referred  to  a  select  committee  of 
seven.  April  6,  the  measure  came  back  from  the  committee  amended, 
and  accompanied  by  majority  and  minority  reports.  Then  the  subject 
was  recommitted  to  the  committee,  and  a  motion  to  reconsider  the 
recommitment  entered.  May  30,  the  special  committee  was,  by  resolu- 
tion, continued  during  the  present  Congress.  At  the  next  session,  the 
subject  was  discussed  on  the  motion  to  reconsider.  The  resolution  as 
amended  contained  these  sections :  — 

"  That  the  Secretary  of  State,  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  the  Secre- 
tary of  War,  the  Secretary  of  the  Navy,  the  Secretary  of  the  Interior, 
the  Attorney- General,  and  the  Postmaster- General,  shall  be  entitled  to 
occupy  seats  on  the  floor  of  the  House  of  Representatives,  with  the  right 
to  participate  in  debate  upon  matters  relating  to  the  business  of  their 
respective  Departments,  under  such  rules  as  may  be  prescribed  by  the 
House. 

"  That  the  said  Secretaries,  the  Attorney- General,  and  the  Postmaster- 
General  shall  attend  the  sessions  of  the  House  of  Representatives,  im- 
mediately on  the  opening  of  the  sittings  on  Mondays  and  Thursdays  of 
each  week,  to  give  information  in  reply  to  questions  which  may  be 
propounded  to  them  under  the  rules  of  the  House." 

The  Committee  also  recommended  certain  amendments  to  the  Rules 
of  the  House,  deemed  necessary  to  carry  the  above  provisions  into  effect 
(see  Congressional  Globe,  January  25,  1865).  The  next  day  Mr.  Gar- 
field delivered  the  following  speech,  in  immediate  reply  to  Mr.  S.  S.  Cox, 
of  Ohio.  On  March  3,  the  resolution  was  laid  aside  informally,  and  no 
action  was  had. 


62  CABINET  OFFICERS  IN  CONGRESS. 


MR.  SPEAKER,  —  I  will  not  detain  the  House  long  on  this 
subject.  I  know  how  difficult  it  is  to  get  the  attention 
of  members  to  the  consideration  of  a  grave  measure  when  they 
have  just  attended  a  place  of  amusement.  I  know  how  ungrate- 
ful a  task  it  is  to  attempt  to  recall  their  attention  after  the  ex- 
hibition to  which  the  gentleman  from  Ohio  ^  has  treated  them. 
The  gentleman's  speech  sufficiently  proves  that  he  has  read  his 
law  on  the  subject  from  Sergeant  Buzfuz,  and  his  constitutional 
and  legislative  history  from  Tittlebat  Titmouse,  to  whom  he  has 
just  referred ;  for  certainly  the  history  of  legislation,  as  reflected 
in  the  Journals  of  Congress,  gives  no  support  to  his  position. 

I  am  glad,  Mr.  Speaker,  that  we  can,  for  once,  approach  the 
discussion  of  a  measure  on  its  own  merits,  uninfluenced  by  any 
mere  party  considerations.  I  wish  we  might,  in  the  discussion 
of  this  subject,  be  equally  free  from  that  international  jealousy, 
that  hereditary  hatred,  so  frequently  and  unreasonably  mani- 
fested against  Great  Britain.  I  have  noticed  on  the  faces  of 
members  of  the  House  a  smile  of  satisfaction  when  any  speaker 
has  denounced  the  proposal  to  copy  any  custom  of,  or  borrow 
any  experience  from,  the  government  of  England.  No  man  on 
this  floor  is  more  desirous  than  myself  to  see  this  republic 
stand  erect  among  the  nations,  and  grant  to  and  exact  from 
Great  Britain  equal  justice.  I  fully  appreciate  how  little  friend- 
ship she  has  shown  us  in  our  great  national  struggle,  yet  I  will 
not  allow  my  mind  to  be  so  prejudiced  as  not  to  see  the  great- 
ness, the  glory,  and  the  excellence  of  the  British  constitution. 
I  believe  that,  next  to  our  own,  the  constitution  of  Great  Britain 
stands  highest  for  its  wisdom  and  its  security  to  freedom  of  all 
the  constitutions  of  the  civilized  world ;  and  in  some  respects 
it  is  equal  or  superior  to  our  own.  It  does  not  become  us, 
therefore,  to  set  it  aside  as  unworthy  of  our  study,  of  our  care- 
ful observation.  Gentlemen  should  not  forget  that,  in  the  days 
of  George  III.,  England,  as  well  as  America,  emancipated  herself 
from  the  tyranny  of  kingly  prerogative;  and  it  may  be  well 
questioned  whether  the  two  streams  that  sprung  from  that  great 
struggle  have  not  been  flowing  in  parallel  channels  of  equal 
depth  and  greatness,  one  on  this  continent  and  the  other  in  the 
British  islands.  It  may  well  be  doubted  whether  there  is  not  as 
much  popular  freedom  in  the  kingdom  of  Great  Britain  as  in 

*  Mr.  Cox. 


CABINET  OFFICERS  IN  CONGRESS.  63 

this  republic,  and  more  Parliamentary  security.  A  gentleman 
who  has  lately  crossed  the  sea,  a  man  of  great  ability  and  a 
philosophic  observer,  has  said  to-day  that  the  British  ministry 
is  nothing  more  or  less  than  "  a  committee  of  the  House  of 
Commons."  I  believe  that  he  describes  it  correctly.  I  believe 
that  no  nation  has  a  ministry  so  susceptible  to  the  breath  of 
popular  opinion,  so  readily  influenced  and  so  completely  con- 
trolled by  popular  power,  as  is  the  ministry  of  Great  Britain  by 
the  House  of  Commons.  Let  one  decisive  vote  be  given  against 
the  plans  of  that  ministry,  and  it  is  at  once  dissolved.  It  exists 
by  the  will  of  the  House  of  Commons.  How  does  this  come 
about?  From  the  fact  that,  at  the  very  time  that  we  emanci- 
pated ourselves  from  the  kingly  prerogatives  of  George  III., 
Parliamentary  reforms  in  Great  Britain  emancipated  that  nation 
and  established  Parliamentary  liberty  in  England.  It  does  not, 
therefore,  become  gentlemen  to  appeal  to  our  ancient  preju- 
dices, so  that  we  may  not  learn  anything  from  that  great  and 
wise  system  of  government  adopted  by  our  neighbors  across 
the  sea. 

In  the  consideration  of  this  question  I  shall  touch  upon  three 
leading  points:  first,  the  precedents  from  our  own  history; 
second,  the  constitutionality  of  the  proposed  measure,  as  ex- 
hibited in  the  early  discussions  and  laws;  and  third,  the  policy 
of  the  measure. 

The  precedents  cited  by  the  gentleman  from  Ohio,^  the  chair- 
man of  the  select  committee,  in  his  very  able  report,  estab- 
lish beyond  all  question  that,  in  the  early  days  of  the  republic 
under  the  Constitution,  the  heads  of  Departments  did  come 
upon  the  floor  of  Congress  and  make  communications.  No 
man,  I  believe,  has  denied  that;  I  think  no  gentleman  can  suc- 
cessfully deny  it.  My  friend  from  Vermont,^  if  I  understand 
him,  denies  that  they  did  more  than  to  meet  the  Senate  in  execu- 
tive session.  I  am  glad  to  see  that  the  gentleman  assents  to  my 
statement  of  his  position.  I  will  now  cite  two  examples  where 
the  head  of  a  Department  came  on  the  floor  of  the  House  and 
made  statements.  If  the  gentleman  will  turn  to  the  first  volume 
of  the  Annals  of  Congress,  he  will  find  the  following  entry 
under  date  of  August  7,  1789:  "The  following  message  was 
received  from  the  President  of  the  United  States  by  General 
Knox,  the  Secretary  of  War,  who  delivered  therewith  sundry 

1  Mr.  Pendleton.  2  Mr.  Morrill. 


64  CABINET  OFFICERS  IN  CONGRESS. 

statements."  ^  Some  gentlemen  may  say  those  statements  were 
in  writing.  I  ask  them  to  listen  a  little  further :  "  who  deliv- 
ered therewith  sundry  statements  and  papers  relating  to  the 
same."  So  the  Secretary  of  War  came  to  the  House  of  Repre- 
sentatives and  made  statements. 

Mr.  Morrill.  I  will  say  to  the  gentleman  from  Ohio,  that  I  take 
that  to  mean  nothing  more  than  what  the  private  secretary  of  the  Presi- 
dent now  does  every  day.  At  that  time  the  President  of  the  United 
States  had  no  private  secretary,  but  he  used  the  members  of  the  Cabinet 
for  that  purpose,  and  for  that  purpose  here  only. 

I  should  like  to  ask  my  friend  from  Vermont  whether  the 
private  secretary  of  the  President  makes  any  statements  except 
the  mere  announcement  of  the  message  which  he  delivers? 

Mr.  Morrill.  I  take  it  that  that  was  all  that  was  contemplated 
then.  We  daily  have  communications  from  the  President,  containing 
more  than  one  document,  statement,  or  paper. 

My  friend  from  Vermont  has  assisted  me.  He  now  makes 
the  point  that  the  expression  "  statements,"  here  referred  to,  is 
merely  the  announcement  of  a  message.  I  call  his  attention  to 
the  second  case  which  I  will  cite  from  the  same  volume.  On 
the  loth  of  August,  1789,  the  President  sent  in  a  message  by 
the  hands  of  General  Knox,  "  who  delivered  the  same,  together 
with  a  statement  of  the  troops  in  the  service  of  the  United 
States."^  He  made  to  the  House  of  Representatives  statements 
about  troops  in  the  service,  so  that  the  statements  referred  to 
are  not  merely  statements  of  the  fact  that  he  delivered  a  mes- 
sage from  the  President. 

Mr.  Morrili-  I  do  not  like  to  interrupt  the  gentleman  from  Ohio, 
but  I  must  insist  that  his  second  instance  does  not  prove  the  fact  which 
he  assumes.  He  will  find,  if  he  will  proceed  further  on  in  the  same 
volume,  that  when  the  question  came  up  distinctly  upon  allowing  the 
Secretary  of  the  Treasury  to  come  in  here  for  once,  and  once  only,  it 
was  then  declared  that  it  would  be  setting  a  new  precedent,  one  which 
they  could  not  tolerate,  and  which  they  did  not  tolerate,  but  voted  down 
after  discussion. 

The  gentleman  has  helped  to  pioneer  my  way  handsomely 
thus  far.  I  shall  consider  the  very  example  to  which  he  refers, 
and  which  I  have  examined  with  some  care,  under  my  second 
point,  —  the  discussions  in  the  Congress  of  the  United  States 

1  Page  709.  »  Page  716. 


CABINET  OFFICERS. IN  CONGRESS.  65 

touching  the  constitutionality  of  the  proposed  law.  There  were 
discussions  at  five  different  periods  in*  the  history  of  Congress, 
and  only  five,  so  far  as  I  have  found,  touching  this  general 
subject. 

The  first  occurred  in  the  First  Congress,  when  it  was  pro- 
posed to  establish  executive  departments.  On  the  19th  of  May, 
1789,  Mr.  Boudinot,  of  New  Jersey,  moved  that  the  House  pro- 
ceed, pursuant  to  the  provisions  of  the  Constitution,  to  estab- 
lish executive  departments  of  the  government,  the  chief  officers 
thereof  to  be  removable  at  the  will  of  the  President.  Under 
that  resolution  arose  a  full  discussion  of  the  nature  of  the  offices 
to  be  created,  by  whom  the  officers  were  to  be  appointed,  and 
by  whom  removed.  The  discussion  covers  forty  or  fifty  pages 
of  the  volume  before  me,  and  embraces  some  of  the  very  ablest 
expositions  of  the  Constitution  to  be  found  in  the  early  annals 
of  Congress.  After  this  long  discussion  the  following  results 
were  arrived  at,  which  will  answer  some  of  the  points  just  made 
by  my  colleague  from  Ohio.^  First,  it  was  decided  that  the 
departments  were  to  be  established  by  Congress,  and  the  duties 
and  general  scope  of  powers  vested  therein  were  to  be  estab- 
lished by  law ;  but  the  incumbents  of  these  offices  were  to  be 
appointed  by  the  President,  and  removed  at  his  pleasure.  It 
was  clearly  determined,  in  the  second  place,  that  these  officers 
could  be  removed  in  two  ways :  first,  by  the  President ;  second, 
by  impeachment  in  the  usual  modes  prescribed  in  the  Consti- 
tution. It  was  thus  settled,  in  this  great  discussion,  not,  as  is 
said  by  my  colleague  who  has  just  taken  his  seat,  that  Cabinet 
ministers  are  the  creatures  of  the  President  and  responsible  to 
him  alone,  but  that  their  very  Departments  and  their  whole 
organization  depend  in  every  case  upon  the  law  of  Congress, 
and  they  are  themselves  subject  to  impeachment  for  neglect  of 
their  duties,  or  violation  of  their  obligations,  in  those  offices. 

The  second  discussion  occurred  in  the  same  year  when  the 
Treasury  Department  was  established,  and  in  that  instance  the 
discussion  became  more  precise  and  critical,  bearing  more 
nearly  upon  the  particular  question  now  before  us.  A  clause 
was  introduced  into  the  law  establishing  the  Treasury  Depart- 
ment, providing  that  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  should  be 
directed  to  prepare  plans  for  the  redemption  of  the  public  debt, 
and  for  all  the  different  measures  relating  to  his  Department; 

1  Mr.  Cox. 
VOL.  I  5 


66  CABINET  OFFICERS  IN  CONGRESS. 

and  "  that  he  shall  make  report,  and  give  information  to  either 
branch  of  the  Legislature,  in  person  or  in  writing,  as  may  be 
required,  respecting  all  matters  referred  to  him  by  the  Senate 
or  House  of  Representatives,  or  which  shall  appertain  to  his 
office."  The  debate  took  a  very  wide  range.  It  was  objected 
by  several  members  that  the  provision  was  unconstitutional,  on 
the  ground  that  the  House  was  the  only  power  authorized  to 
originate  money  bills,  and  that  such  an  enactment  would  put 
that  power  in  the  hands  of  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury.  A 
very  long  discussion  ensued  on  what  was  meant  by  **  originating 
a  bill."  Some  contended  that  to  draft  a  bill  was  to  originate 
it;  others,  that  no  proposed  measure  was  a  "bill"  until  the 
House  had  passed  it ;  while  others  again  said  that  it  was  a  bill 
whenever  the  House  authorized  it  to  be  introduced.  Finally  it 
was  determined  that  there  wai&  nothing  incompatible  with  the 
Constitution  in  allowing  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  to  report 
plans  and  prepare  drafts  of  bills.  It  was  thus  settled,  and  has 
been  the  policy  of  the  government  till  the  present  day,  that  the 
Secretary  of  the  Treasury  may  properly  draft  bills  and  prepare 
plans  and  present  them  to  Congress.  And  it  is  still  a  part  of 
pur  law,  —  I  have  the  provision  before  me,  —  **  that  the  Secre- 
tary of  the  Treasury  shall  make  report,  and  give  information 
to  either  branch  of  the  Legislature,  in  person  or  in  writing, 
as  may  be  required."  Let  it  be  understood  that  in  the  First 
Congress  of  the  United  States  a  law  was  passed,  —  approved, 
Sept.  2,  1789,  by  George  Washington,  acted  upon  before  in 
the  House  and  in  the  Senate  by  the  men  who  framed  the 
'  Constitution,  —  which  law  provided  that  it  should  be  the  duty 
of  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  to  report  his  plans  in  writing 
or  in  person,  as  either  House  might  require. 

Mr.  Morrill.  I  desire  to  ask  the  gentleman  a  question.  When  the 
Secretary  had  made  out  his  plan  in  pursuance  of  the  resolution  by  which 
he  was  authorized  to  make  it,  did  not  the  House,  on  the  very  first  occa- 
sion when  it  could  take  action  on  the  subject,  distinctly  discuss  the  ques- 
tion, and  refuse  him  the  privilege  of  reporting  in  person  ? 

I  am  coming,  in  a  moment,  to  that  precise  point.  The  whole 
question  of  the  undue  influence  which  it  might  give  to  the 
executive  Departments  to  allow  Cabinet  officers  to  make  their 
reports  was  fully  examined ;  and  after  the  fullest  and  freest  dis- 
cussion, which,  even  in  a  condensed  form,  covers  some  twenty 


CABINET  OFFICERS  IN  CONGRESS.  67 

pages  of  the  book  before  me,  the  measure  was  passed  without 
even  a  division,  and  became  the  law  of  the  land. 

I  now  come  to  the  point  to  which  the  gentleman  from  Ver- 
mont has  referred,  —  the  third  of  the  five  discussions.  On  the 
9th  of  January,  1790,  the  House  received  a  communication 
from  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  stating  that,  in  obedience 
to  their  resolution  of  the  21st  of  September  previous,  he  had 
prepared  a  draft  of  a  plan  for  funding  the  public  debt,  and  was 
ready,  at  their  pleasure,  to  report,  —  it  being  settled  in  the  law, 
as  I  have  already  said,  that  he  should  report  in  person  or  in 
writing,  as  he  might  be  directed.  The  question  was  discussed, 
as  the  gentleman  from  Vermont  noticed  in  his  examination  of 
the  case  yesterday.  Mr.  Gerry  moved  that  the  report  should 
be  made  in  writing.  The  question,  whether  it  should  be  made 
in  writing  or  orally  was  discussed,  and  the  chief  argument  used 
in  the  case  was,  that  it  would  be  impossible  for  members  of 
Congress  to  understand  it  unless  it  was  reduced  to  writing,  so 
that  they  could  have  it  before  them.  It  was  also  said  that  the 
scope  and  bearing  of  the  whole  report  would  be  so  extensive 
that  the  human  mind  could  not  comprehend  the  whole  of  it, 
unless  they  could  have  it  before  them  in  a  permanent  shape. 
It  was  conceded  by  several  who  spoke,  that  the  House  could 
have  the  report  made  in  writing,  or  orally,  or  in  writing  with 
accompanying  oral  explanations.  The  constitutional  doubt  was 
not  suggested  in  that  discussion.  It  was  decided,  without  a 
division,  not  that  the  Secretary  should  not  be  permitted  to  come 
into  the  House,  but  that  his  report  should  be  in  writing.  The 
law  still  stood,  as  it  now  stands,  that  he  shall  report  in  person 
or  in  writing,  as  either  House  may  direct. 

The  fourth  discussion  related  to  the  defeat  of  General  St. 
Clair.  I  will  remind  the  House  of  the  history  of  that  case.  In 
1791,  St.  Clair  was  ordered  to  lead  an  expedition  against  the 
Indians  in  the  Northwestern  Territory ;  his  army  was  disgrace- 
fully defeated ;  the  case  was  referred  to  General  Washington, 
who  declined  to  order  a  court  of  inquiry;  and  the  subject  was 
taken  up  in  the  House  of  Representatives,  and  on  the  27th  of 
March,  1792,  a  committee  was  ordered  to  inquire  into  the  causes 
of  the  failure  of  the  expedition.  On  the  8th  of  May  following, 
the  committee  made  a  report  which  reflected  severely  upon  the 
Secretary  of  the  Treasury  and  the  Secretary  of  War.  On  the 
13th  of  November,  1792,  a  resolution  was  introduced  into  the 


68  CABINET  OFFICERS  IN  CONGRESS. 

House  to  notify  the  two  Secretaries  that  on  the  following 
Wednesday  the  House  would  take  the  report  into  consideration, 
and  that  they  might  attend.  After  a  considerable  discussion, 
the  resolution  was  negatived,  and  it  was  resolved  to  empower 
a  special  committee  of  the  House  to  send  for  persons  and 
papers  in  the  case.  On  the  following  day  the  Secretary  of 
War,  General  Knox,  addressed  a  letter  to  the  Speaker  of  the 
House,  asking  an  opportunity  to  vindicate  himself  before  the 
House.  It  was  said  by  the  gentleman  from  Vermont,  yesterday, 
that  General  Knox  was  not  permitted  to  come  in.  A  discussion 
of  the  subject  followed  the  presentation  of  his  request.  The 
House  had  not  been  satisfied  with  the  report,  and  recommitted 
it  to  the  committee  for  further  examination.  After  the  recom- 
mitment of  the  report,  the  Secretaries  were  brought  before  the 
committee  and  examined,  so  that  their  testimony  reached  the 
House  in  that  mode.  The  question  was  never  put  to  the  House 
whether  they  would  or  would  not  receive  the  Secretaries  in  the 
House,  but  whether  they  should  adopt  the  report,  or  recommit 
it  and  order  the  committee  to  take  further  testimony.  They 
did  the  latter.  The  proposition  to  admit  them  to  the  House 
was  not  directly  acted  upon  at  all. 

Before  leaving  this  branch  of  the  subject  I  must  refer  to  the 
opinion  of  Mr.  Madison  as  expressed  in  the  debate  of  Novem- 
ber 13,  1792,  on  the  question  of  admitting  the  Secretaries  to  the 
House  to  take  part  in  the  investigation  of  St.  Clair.  This  was 
the  only  quotation,  I  believe,  which  the  gentleman  from  Ver- 
mont found  to  apply  directly  to  the  point  at  issue.  It  is  true 
that  Mr.  Madison  did  say  he  objected  to  the  House  resolution 
on  constitutional  grounds.^  But  he  did  not  state  what  those 
constitutional  grounds  were.  It  is  a  little  remarkable  that  he 
who  had  in  1789  spoken  and  voted  for  the  Treasury  Act  au- 
thorizing the  Secretary  to  report  in  person  or  in  writing,  as 
either  House  might  direct,  should  declare  only  three  years  later 
that  it  was  unconstitutional  to  let  the  Secretary  come  before  the 
House  to  give  information  or  testimony.  Perhaps,  sir,  a  little 
light  from  history  will  help  to  explain  Mr.  Madison's  singular 
position.  My  friend  from  Vermont  will  remember  that  within 
those  three  years  Mr.  Madison  and  Mr.  Hamilton  had  become 
seriously  alienated  from  each  other,  and  the  gifted  authors  of 
the  Federalist  were  friends  no  longer.     The  great  party  strife 

^  See  Annals,  Second  Congress,  p.  680. 


CABINET  OFFICERS  IN  CONGRESS.  69 

had  begun,  and  they  had  taken  opposite  sides,  Mr.  Jefferson 
leading  one  party,  Mr.  Madison  following;  and,  Mr.  Hamilton 
leading  the  other,  his  friends,  the  Federalists,  following  him.  It 
is  not,  therefore,  very  surprising  that  Mr.  Madison  should  have 
been  influenced,  like  others,  by  personal  feeling,  or  at  least  by 
his  political  differences  with  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury.  It 
is  well  known  that  his  political  opinions  were  greatly  changed 
by  the  influence  of  Mr.  Jefferson. 

The  fifth  and  last  discussion  to  which  I  shall  refer  occurred 
on  the  19th  of  November,*  1792,  on  a  resolution  of  the  House 
directing  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  to  report  a  plan  for  the 
reduction  of  the  public  debt.  The  question  of  the  constitu- 
tionality of  his  reporting  a  plan  at  all,  again  arose.  The  whole 
ground  was  again  gone  over.  Notwithstanding  Madison's  rec- 
ord in  1789,  he  opposed  the  resolution;  but  it  was  passed 
against  him  by  the  decisive  vote  of  thirty-one  to  twenty-five. 
So  that  even  down  to  that  day,  after  parties  had  taken  their 
groundi-'after  Madison  and  Hamilton  had  become  antagonistic, 
after  all  the  fierceness  of  personal  feeling  was  awakened,  still 
the  House  determined  that  the  law  should  stand  as  it  was 
enacted  by  the  First  Congress. 

As  the  result  of  all  these  discussions,  the  custom  obtained  to 
receive  reports  and  information  from  the  heads  of  Departments 
in  writing  rather  than  in  person.  That  custom  has  now  almost 
the  force  of  law.  But  while  the  Treasury  Act  of  1789  remains 
on  our  statute-book,  we  have  a  clear  right  to  change  the  cus- 
tom. I  claim  that,  by  a  simple  resolution  of  the  House  of  Rep- 
resentatives alone,  we  can  now  call  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury 
here  to  explain  in  person  any  plan  or  measure  of  his,  and  he  is 
bound  to  come.  The  Senate  can  do  the  same  for  itself.  The 
very  law  which  establishes  his  office  and  builds  up  his  Depart- 
ment makes  it  obligatory  upon  him  to  come  when  thus  ordered. 
This  is  true  only  of  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury. 

I  hold  it,  then,  fairly  established,  that  the  measure  before  us 
is  clearly  within  the  scope  of  our  constitutional  powers ;  that  it 
is  only  a  question  how  a  thing  shall  be  done,  the  thing  to  be 
done  being  already  provided  by  law.  The  heads  of  Depart- 
ments do  now  make  known  their  plans  and  views ;  they  do  now 
communicate  to  the  House  all  that  this  resolution  contemplates 
that  they  shall  communicate.  It  is  only  a  question  of  mode. 
They  now  communicate  with  the  pen.    This  resolution  proposes 


70  CABINET  OFFICERS  IN  CONGRESS. 

to  add  the  tongue  to  the  pen,  the  voice  to  the  document,  the 
explanation  to  the  text,  and  nothing  more.  It  is  simply  a 
proposition  to  add  to  our  facilities  by  having  the  Secretaries 
here  to  explain  orally  what  they  have  already  transmitted  in 
documentary  form. 

And  this  brings  me  to  the  third  and  last  point  that  I  propose 
to  examine  in  this  discussion,  —  the  policy  of  the  proposed 
change,  on  which,  I  admit,  there  is  much  room  for  difference  of 
opinion.  The  committee  have  given  a  very  exhaustive  state- 
ment of  its  advantages  in  their  report,  and  I  will  only  enlarge 
upon  a  few  points  in  their  statement. 

And,  first  of  all,  the  proposed  change  will  increase  our  facili- 
ties for  full  and  accurate  information  as  the  basis  of  legislative 
action.  There  are  some  gentlemen  here  who  doubt  whether  we 
have  a  right  to  demand  information  from  the  heads  of  Depart- 
ments. Do  we  get  that  information  as  readily,  as  quickly,  and  as 
fully  as  we  need  it?  Let  me  read  an  extract  illustrative  of  the 
present  plan.  The  President  of  the  United  States,  in  his  last 
annual  message  to  Congress,  says :  "  The  Report  of  the  Sec- 
retary of  War,  and  accompanying  documents,  will  detail  the 
campaigns  of  the  armies  in  the  field  since  the  date  of  the  last 
annual  message,  and  also  the  operations  of  the  several  adminis- 
trative bureaus  of  the  War  Department  during  the  last  year. 
It  will  also  specify  the  measures  deemed  essential  for  the  national 
defence,  and  to  keep  up  and  supply  the  requisite  military  force." 
Has  that  report  been  received  ?  This  message  was  delivered  to 
us  at  the  commencement  of  the  present  session;  we  are  now 
within  five  weeks  of  its  close ;  but  to  this  hour  we  have  had  no 
report  from  the  Secretary  of  War,  no  official  advice  from  him  in 
reference  to  the  "  measures  deemed  essential  for  the  national 
defence,  and  to  keep  up  and  supply  the  requisite  military  force." 
We  have  been  working  in  the  dark,  and  it  is  only  as  we  have 
reconnoitred  the  War  Department,  and  forced  ourselves  in 
sidewise  and  edgewise,  that  we  have  been  able  to  learn  what  is 
considered  essential  for  the  national  defence.  Had  this  resolu- 
tion been  in  force,  we  should  long  ago  have  had  his  report  in 
our  hands,  or  his  good  and  sufficient  reason  for  withhold- 
ing it. 

I  call  the  attention  of  the  House  to  the  fact,  that  our  table 
is  groaning  under  the  weight  of  resolutions  asking  information 
from  the  several  Departments  that  have  not  been  answered. 


CABINET  OFFICERS  IN  CONGRESS.  Ji 

Who  does  not  remember  that,  at  a  very  early  day  of  the  session, 
a  resolution,  introduced  by  a  member  from  Indiana,^  was  unan- 
imously adopted,  asking  why  the  order  of  the  House  had  been 
neglected,  and  we  had  not  been  furnished  with  the  information  ? 
But  this  also  has  fallen  a  brutum  fulmen  ;  we  have  received  no 
answer.  Could  these  things  be,  if  the  members  of  the  legisla- 
tive and  executive  departments  were  sitting  in  council  together? 
Should  we  not  long  ago  have  had  the  information,  or  known 
the  reason  why  we  did  not  have  it? 

On  the  subject  of  information,  I  have  a  word  more  to  say. 
We  want  information  more  in  detail  than  we  can  get  by  the 
present  mode.  For  example,  it  would  have  aided  many  of  us, 
a  few  days  since,  when  the  Loan  Bill  was  under  consideration, 
if  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  had  been  here  to  tell  us  pre- 
cisely what  he  intended  in  regard  to  an  increase  of  the  volume 
of  the  currency  under  the  provisions  of  the  bill.  We  want  to 
understand  each  other  thoroughly;  and  when  this  is  done,  it 
will  remove  a  large  share  of  the  burdens  of  legislation. 

One  other  point  on  the  policy  of  the  measure.  I  want  this 
joint  resolution  passed  to  readjust  the  relations  between  the 
executive  and  legislative  departments,  and  to  readjust  them  so 
that  there  shall  be  greater  responsibility  to  the  legislative  de- 
partment than  there  now  is,  and  that  that  responsibility  shall 
be  made  to  rest  with  greater  weight  upon  the  shoulders  of  the 
executive  authority.  I  am  surprised  that  both  the  gentleman 
from  Vermont  and  the  gentleman  from  Ohio  declare  that  this 
measure  would  aggrandize  the  executive  authority.  I  must  say 
that,  to  me,  it  is  one  objection  to  this  plan,  that  it  may  have 
exactly  the  opposite  effect.  I  believe,  Mr.  Speaker,  that  the 
fame  of  Jefferson  is  waning,  and  the  fame  of  Hamilton  wax- 
ing, in  the  estimation  of  the  American  people,  and  that  we 
are  gravitating  towards  a  stronger  government  I  am  glad  we 
are,  and  I  hope  this  measure  will  cause  the  heads  of  Depart- 
ments to  become  so  thoroughly  acquainted  with  the  details  of 
their  office  as  to  compensate  for  the  restrictions  imposed  upon 
them.  Who  does  not  know  that  the  enactment  of  this  law  will 
tend  to  bring  our  ablest  men  into  the  Cabinet  of  the  republic? 
Who  does  not  know  that,  if  a  man  is  to  be  responsible  for  his 
executive  acts,  and  also  be  able  to  tell  why  he  proposes  new 
measures,  and  to  comprehend  intelligently  the  whole  scope  of 

1  Mr.  Holman. 


y2  CABINET  OFFICERS  IN  CONGRESS. 

his  duties,  weak  men  will  shrink  from  taking  such  places? 
Who  does  not  know  that  it  will  call  out  the  best  talent  of  the 
land,  both  executive  and  parliamentary?  What  is  the  fact  now? 
I  venture  to  assert,  that  the  mass  of  our  executive  information 
comes  from  the  heads  of  bureaus,  or  perhaps  from  the  chief 
clerks  of  bureaus,  or  other  subordinates  unknown  to  the  legisla- 
tive body.  I  would  have  it,  that,  when  these  men  bring  infor- 
mation before  us,  they  shall  themselves  be  possessed  of  the  last 
items  of  that  information,  so  that  they  can  explain  them  as 
fully  as  the  chairman  of  the  Committee  of  Ways  and  Means 
ever  explains  his  measures  when  he  offers  them  to  the  House. 

One  more  word,  Mr.  Speaker.  Instead  of  seeing  the  picture 
which  the  gentleman  from  Ohio^  has  painted  to  attract  our 
minds  from  the  subject-matter  itself  to  the  mere  gaudiness  of 
his  farcical  display,  instead  of  seeing  that  unworthy  and  un- 
manly exhibition  in  this  House  which  he  has  described,  I  would 
see  in  its  place  the  executive  heads  of  the  government  giving 
information  to,  and  consulting  with,  the  representatives  of  the 
people  in  an  open  and  undisguised  way.  Sir,  the  danger  to 
American  liberty  is  not  from  open  contact  with  departments, 
but  from  that  unseen,  intangible  influence  which  characterizes 
courts,  crowns,  and  cabinets.  Who  does  not  know,  and  who 
does  not  feel,  how  completely  the  reason  of  a  member  may  be 
stultified  by  the  written  dictum  of  some  head  of  Department, 
that  he  thinks  a  measure  good  or  bad,  wise  or  unwise?  I  want 
that  head  of  Department  to  tell  me  why ;  I  want  him  to  appeal 
to  my  reason,  and  not  lecture  me  ex  catkedrUy  and  desire  me  to 
follow  his  lead  just  because  he  leads.  I  do  not  believe  in  any 
prescriptive  right  to  determine  what  legislation  shall  be.  No, 
sir;  it  is  the  silent,  secret  influence  that  saps  and  undermines 
the  fabric  of  republics,  and  not  the  open  appeal,  the  collision 
between  intellects,  the  array  of  facts. 

I  hope,  Mr.  Speaker,  that  this  measure  will  be  fairly  con- 
sidered. If  it  do  not  pass  now,  the  day  will  come,  I  believe, 
when  it  will  pass.  When  that  day  comes,  I  expect  to  see  a 
higher  type  of  American  statesmanship,  not  only  in  the  Cabinet, 
but  also  in  the  legislative  halls. 

1  Mr.  Cox. 


THE    CONSTITUTIONAL    AMENDMENT 
ABOLISHING    SLAVERY. 

SPEECH  DELIVERED  IN  THE  HOUSE  OF  REPRESENTATIVES, 

January  13,  1865. 


February  10,  1864,  Mr.  Lyman  Trambull,  of  Illinois,  reported  to  the 
Senate,  from  the  Committee  on  the  Judiciary,  this  Joint  Resolution :  — 

"  Be  it  resolved,  etc.,  etc..  That  the  following  article  be  proposed  to  the 
Legislatures  of  the  several  States  as  an  amendment  to  the  Constitution 
of  the  United  States,  which,  when  ratified  by  three  fourths  of  said  Legis- 
latures, shall  be  valid,  to  all  intents  and  purposes,  as  a  part  of  the  said 
Constitution,  namely :  — 

"Article  XIII.  Sect.  i.  Neither  slavery  nor  involuntary  servitude, 
except  as  a  punishment  for  crime  whereof  the  party  shall  have  been 
duly  convicted,  shall  exist  within  the  United  States,  or  any  place  subject 
to  their  jurisdiction. 

"Sect.  2.  Congress  shall  have  power  to  enforce  this  article  by  appro- 
priate legislation." 

April  8  following,  this  resolution  passed  the  Senate.  June  15,  it  was 
rejected  in  the  House.  The  same  day,  a  motion  to  reconsider  the  vote 
was  entered.  At  the  next  session,  January  6,  1865,  ^^^  motion  to  recon- 
sider was  taken  up  and  discussed  at  length.  On  this  motion,  January  13, 
Mr.  Garfield  made  the  speech  that  follows.  The  31st  of  the  same  month 
the  question  to  reconsider  carried,  and  the  same  day  the  resolution  was 
adopted.  December  18,  1865,  the  Secretary  of  State,  Mr.  Seward,  issued 
his  certificate  to  the  effect  that,  the  requisite  number  of  States  having 
ratified  the  proposed  amendment,  it  had  become  valid  to  all  mtents  and 
purposes  as  a  part  of  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States. 


MR.  SPEAKER,  —  We  shall  never  know  why  slavery  dies  so 
hard  in  this  republic  and  in  this  hall  till  we  know  why  sin 
has  such  longevity  and  Satan  is  immortal.  With  marvellous 
tenacity  of  existence,  it  has  outlived  the  expectations  of  its 


74  AMENDMENT  ABOLISHING  SLA  VER  Y. 

friends  and  the  hopes  of  its  enemies.  It  has  been  declared  here 
and  elsewhere  to  be  in  all  the  several  stages  of  mortality,  — 
wounded,  dying,  dead.  The  question  was  raised  by  my  col- 
league^ yesterday  whether  it  was  indeed  dead,  or  only  in  a 
troubled  sleep.  I  know  of  no  better  illustration  of  its  condition 
than  is  found  in  Sallust's  admirable  history  of  the  great  conspir- 
ator Catiline,  who,  when  his  final  battle  was  fought  and  lost,  his 
army  broken  and  scattered,  was  found,  far  in  advance  of  his  own 
troops,  lying  among  the  dead  enemies  of  Rome,  yet  breathing  a 
little,  but  exhibiting  in  his  countenance  all  that  ferocity  of  spirit 
which  had  characterized  his  life.  So,  sir,  this  body  of  slavery 
lies  before  us  among  the  dead  enemies  of  the  republic,  mortally 
wounded,  impotent  in  its  fiendish  wickedness,  but  with  its  old 
ferocity  of  look,  bearing  the  unmistakable  marks  of  its  infernal 
origin. 

Who  does  not  remember  that  thirty  years  ago — a  short  period 
in  the  life  of  a  nafion  —  but  little  could  be  said  with  impunity  in 
these  halls  on  the  subject  of  slavery?  How  well  do  gentlemen 
here  remember  the  history  of  that  distinguished  predecessor  of 
mine,  Joshua  R.  Giddings,  lately  gone  to  his  rest,  who,  with  his 
forlorn  hope  of  faithful  men,  took  his  life  in  his  hand,  and  in  the 
name  of  justice  protested  against  the  great  crime,  and  who  stood 
bravely  in  his  place  until  his  white  locks,  like  the  plume  of 
Henry  of  Navarre,  marked  where  the  battle  for  freedom  raged 
fiercest !  We  can  hardly  realize  that  this  is  the  same  people, 
and  these  the  same  halls,  where  now  scarcely  a  man  can  be 
found  who  will  venture  to  do  more  than  falter  out  an  apology 
for  slavery,  protesting  in  the  same  breath  that  he  has  no  love  for 
the  dying  tyrant  None,  I  believe,  but  that  man  of  more  than 
supernal  boldness  from  the  city  of  New  York,^  has  ventured,  this 
session,  to  raise  his  voice  in  favor  of  slavery  for  its  own  sake. 
He  still  sees  in  its  features  the  reflection  of  beauty  and  divinity, 
and  only  he.  "  How  art  thou  fallen  from  heaven,  O  Lucifer, 
son  of  the  morning !  How  art  thou  cut  down  to  the  ground, 
which  didst  weaken  the  nations !  "  Many  mighty  men  have 
been  slain  by  thee ;  many  proud  ones  have  humbled  themselves 
at  thy  feet.  All  along  the  coast  of  our  political  sea  these  vic- 
tims of  slavery  lie  like  stranded  wrecks,  broken  on  the  headlands 
of  freedom.  How  lately  did  its  advocates,  with  impious  bold- 
ness, maintain  it  as  God's  own,  to  be  venerated  and  cherished  as 

1  Mr.  Cox.  a  Mr.  Wood. 


AMENDMENT  ABOLISHING  SLAVERY.  75 

divine !  It  was  another  and  higher  form  of  civilization.  It  was 
the  holy  evangel  of  America  dispensing  its  mercies  to  a  benighted 
race,  and  destined  to  bear  countless  blessings  to  the  wilder- 
ness of  the  West.  In  its  mad  arrogance,  it  lifted  its  hand  to 
strike  down  the  fabric  of  the  Union,  and  since  that  fatal  day  it 
has  been  a  "  fugitive  and  a  vagabond  in  the  earth."  Like  the 
spirit  that  Jesus  cast  out,  it  has,  since  then,  been  "  seeking  rest 
and  finding  none."  It  has  sought  in  all  the  corners  of  the 
republic  to  find  some  hiding-place  in  which  to  shelter  itself  from 
the  death  it  so  richly  deserves.  It  sought  an  asylum  in  the 
untrodden  territories  of  the  West,  but  with  a  whip  of  scorpions 
indignant  freemen  drove  it  thence.  I  do  not  believe  that  a  loyal 
man  can  now  be  found  who  would  consent  that  it  should  again 
enter  them.  It  has  no  hope  of  harbor  there.  It  found  no  pro- 
tection or  favor  in  the  hearts  or  consciences  of  the  freemen  of 
the  republic,  and  has  fled  for  its  last  hope  of  safety  behind  the 
shield  of  the  Constitution.  We  propose  to 'follow  it  there,  and 
drive  it  thence,  as  Satan  was  exiled  from  heaven.  But  now,  in 
the  hour  of  its  mortal  agony,  in  this  hall,  it  has  found  a 
defender. 

My  gallant  colleague^  (for  I  recognize  him  as  a  gallant  and 
able  man)  plants  himself  at  the  door  of  his  darling,  and  bids  de- 
fiance to  all  assailants.  He  has  followed  slavery  in  its  flight, 
until  at  last  it  has  reached  the  great  temple  where  liberty  is  en- 
shrined, the  Constitution  of  the  United  States ;  and  there,  in  that 
last  retreat,  declares  that  no  hand  shall  strike  it.  He  reminds 
me  of  that  celebrated  passage  in  the  great  Latin  poet  in  which 
the  serpents  of  the  sea,  when  they  had  destroyed  Laocoon  and 
his  sons,  fled  to  the  heights  of  the  Trojan  citadel,  and  coiled 
their  slimy  lengths  around  the  feet  of  the  tutelar  goddess,  and 
were  covered  by  the  orb  of  her  shield.  So,  under  the  guidance 
of  my  colleague,  slavery,  gorged  with  the  blood  of  ten  thousand 
freemen,  has  climbed  to  the  high  citadel  of  American  nationality, 
and  coiled  itself  securely,  as  he  believes,  around  the  feet  of  the 
statue  of  Justice  and  under  the  shield  of  the  Constitution  of  the 
United  States.  We  desire  to  follow  it  even  there,  and  kill  it 
beside  the  very  altar  of  liberty.  Its  blood  can  never  make 
atonement  for  the  least  of  its  crimes. 

But  the  gentleman  has  gone  further.  He  is  not  content  that 
the  snaky  sorceress  shall  be  merely  wider  the  protection  of  the 

1  Mr.  Pendleton. 


'je  AMENDMENT  ABOLISHING  SLA  VER  Y. 

Constitution.  In  his  view,  by  a  strange  metamorphosis,  slavery 
becomes  an  invisible  essence,  and  takes  up  its  abode  in  the  very 
grain  and  fibre  of  the  Constitution ;  and  when  we  would  strike 
it,  he  says :  "  I  cannot  point  out  any  express  clause  that  prohibits 
you  from  destroying  slavery;  but  I  find  a  prohibition  in  the 
intent  and  meaning  of  the  Constitution,  t  go  under  the  surface, 
out  of  sight,  into  the  very  genius  of  it,  and  in  that  invisible 
domain  slavery  is  enshrined,  and  there  is  no  power  in  the  republic 
to  drive  it  thence."  That  I  may  do  no  injustice  to  my  colleague, 
I  will  read  from  his  speech  of  day  before  yesterday  the  passage 
to  which  I  refer :  — 

"My  colleague  from  the  Toledo  district,^  in  the  speech  which  he 
made  the  other  day,  told  us,  with  reference  to  this  point :  *  If  I  read  the 
Constitution  aright,  and  understand  the  force  of  language,  the  section 
which  I  have  just  quoted  is  to-day  free  from  all  limitations  and  condi- 
tions save  two,  one  of  which  provides  that  the  suffrage  of  the  several 
States  in  tlie  Senate  shall  be  equal,  and  that  no  State  shall  lose  this 
equality  by  any  amendment  of  the  Constitution  without  its  consent; 
the  other  relates  to  taxation.  These  are  the  only  conditions  and  limita- 
tions.* I  deny  it.  I  assert  that  there  is  another  limitation  stronger  even 
than  the  letter  of  the  Constitution ;  and  that  is  to  be  found  in  its  intent, 
and  its  spirit,  and  its  foundation  idea.  I  put  the  question  which  has 
been  put  before  in  this  debate  :  Can  three  fourths  of  the  States  constitu- 
tionally change  this  government,  and  make  it  an  autocracy  ?     It  is  not 

prohibited  by  the  letter  of  the  Constitution It  does  not  come 

within  the  two  classes  of  limitations  and  conditions  asserted  by  my 
colleague.  Why  is  it  that  this  change  cannot  be  made  ?  I  will  tell  you 
why.  It  is  because  republicanism  lies  at  the  very  foundation  of  our 
system  of  government,  and  to  overthrow  that  idea  is  not  to  amend,  but 
to  subvert  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States ;  and  I  say  that  if  three 
fourths  of  the  States  should  undertake  to  pass  an  amendment  of  that 
kind,  and  Rhode  Island  alone  dissented,  she  would  have  the  right  to 
resist  by  force.  It  would  be  her  duty  to  resist  by  force  ;  and  her  cause 
would  be  sacred  in  the  eyes  of  just  men,  and  sanctified  in  the  eyes  of  a 
just  God.''  2 

Jefferson  Davis  and  his  fellow-conspirators  will  ask  for  no  bet- 
ter defence  of  their  rebellion.  South  Carolina  will  ask  no  more 
than  to  be  placed  in  the  same  category  with  Rhode  Island  —  in 
the  gentleman's  argument.  South  Carolina  being  her  own  judge, 
her  cause  is  "  sacred  in  the  eyes  of  just  men,  and  sanctified  in 
the  eyes  of  a  just  God."     He  goes  behind  the  letter  of  the  Con- 

1  Mr.  Ashley.  ^  Congressional  Globe,  Jan.  ii,  1865,  pp.  221,  222. 


AMENDMENT  ABOLISHING  SLA  VER  K  ^^ 

stitution,  and  finds  a  refuge  for  slavery  in  its  intent ;  and  with 
that  intent  he  declares  that  we  have  no  right  to  deal  in  the  way 
of  amendment. 

But  he  has  gone  even  deeper  than  the  spirit  and  intent  of  the 
Constitution.  He  has  announced  a  discovery  to  which  I  am 
sure  no  other  statesman  will  lay  claim.  He  has  found  a  domain 
where  slavery  can  no  more  be  reached  by  human  law  than  the 
hfe  of  Satan  by  the  sword  of  Michael.  He  has  marked  the 
hither  boundary  of  this  newly  discovered  continent,  in  his 
response  to  the  question  of  the  gentleman  from  lowa.^  I  will 
read  it :  "I  will  not  be  drawn  now  into  a  discussion  with  the 
gentleman  as  to  the  origin  of  slavery,  nor  to  the  law  which  lies 
behind  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States,  and  behind  the 
governments  of  the  States,  by  which  these  people  are  held  in 
slavery."  Not  finding  anything  in  the  words  and  phrases  of 
the  Constitution  that  forbids  an  amendment  abolishing  slavery, 
he  goes  behind  all  human  enactments,  and  far  away,  among  the 
eternal  equities,  he  finds  a  primal  law  which  overshadows  states, 
nations,  and  constitutions,  as  space  envelops  the  universe,  and  by 
its  solemn  sanctions  one  human  being  can  hold  another  in  per- 
petual slavery.  Surely  human  ingenuity  has  never  gone  farther 
to  protect  a  malefactor  or  defend  a  crime. ^  I  shall  make  no 
argument  with  my  colleague  on  this  point;  for  in  that  high  court 
to  which  he  appeals  eternal  justice  dwells  with  freedom,  and 
slavery  has  never  entered. 

I  now  turn  to  the  main  point  of  his  argument.  He  has  given 
us  the  key  to  his  theory  of  the  Constitution  in  the  three  words 
which  the  gentleman  from  Rhode  Island  ^  commented  upon  last 
evening.  Upon  those  words  rests  the  strength  or  weakness  of 
his  position.  He  describes  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States 
as  a  **  compact  of  confederation."  If  I  understand  the  gentleman, 
he  holds  that  each  State  is  sovereign ;  that  in  their  sovereign 
capacity,  as  the  source  and  fountain  of  power,  the  States,  each 
for  itself,  ratified  the  Constitution  which  the  Convention  had 
framed.  What  powers  they  did  not  grant  they  reserved.  They 
did  not  grant  to  the  Federal  government  the  right  to  control 
the  subject  of  slavery.  That  right  still  resides  in  the  States 
severally.  Hence  no  amendment  of  the  Constitution  by  three 
fourths  of  the  States  can  legally  affect  slavery  in  the  remaining 
fourth.     Hence  no  amendment   by  the  modes  pointed  out  in 

1  Mr.  Wilson.  i  Mr.  Jenckcs. 


78  AMENDMENT  ABOLISHING  SLAVERY. 

the  Constitution  can  reach  it.  This,  I  believe,  is  a  succinct  and 
just  statement  of  his  argument  The  whole  question  turns  upon 
the  sovereignty  of  the  States.  Are  they  sovereign  and  inde- 
pendent now  ?  Were  they  ever  so  ?  I  shall  endeavor  to  answer. 
I  appeal  to  the  facts  of  history,  and,  to  bring  them  clearly  before 
us,  I  affirm :  — 

I.  That  prior  to  the  4th  of  July,  1776,  the  Colonies  were 
neither  free  nor  independent.  Their  sovereignty  was  lodged 
in  the  Crown  of  Great  Britain.  I  believe  no  man  will  deny 
this.  It  was  admitted  in  the  first  Declaration  of  Rights,  put 
forth  by  the  Revolutionary  Congress  that,  in  1 774,  assembled 
in  Philadelphia  to  pray  for  a  redress  of  grievances.  That 
body  expressly  admitted  that  the  sovereignty  of  the  Colonies 
was  lodged  in  the  Crown  of  Great  Britain.  It  has  been  taught 
by  Jay  and  Story,  and  has  been  so  decided  by  the  Supreme 
Court  of  the  United  States.^ 

II.  On  the  4th  of  July,  1776,  the  sovereignty  was  withdrawn 
from  the  British  Crown,  by  the  whole  people  of  the  Colonies, 
and  lodged  in  the  Revolutionary  Congress.  No  Colony  de- 
clared itself  free  and  independent.  Neither  Virginia,  New  York, 
nor  Massachusetts  declared  itself  free  and  independent  of  the 
Crown  of  Great  Britain.  The  declaration  was  made  not  even 
by  all  the  Colonies  as  colonies,  but  in  the  name  and  by  the  au- 
thority of  "the  good  people  of  these  Colonies,"  as  one  people. 
In  the  following  memorable  declaration  the  sovereignty  was 
transferred  from  the  Crown  of  Great  Britain  to  \ii^  people  of  the 
Colonies :  — 

"  We,  therefore,  the  representatives  of  the  United  States  of  America, 
in  General  Congress  assembled,  appealing  to  the  Supreme  Judge  of  the 
world  for  the  rectitude  of  our  intentions,  do,  in  the  name  and  by  the 
authority  of  the  good  people  of  these  Colonies,  solemnly  publish  and 
declare  that  these  United  Colonies  are,  and  of  right  ought  to  be,  free 
and  independent  States ;  that  they  are  absolved  fix)m  all  allegiance  to 
the  British  Crown,  and  that  all  political  connection  between  them  and 
the  state  of  Great  Britain  is,  and  ought  to  be,  totally  dissolved ;  and  that 
as  free  and  independent  States  they  have  fuU  power  to  levy  war,  con- 
clude peace,  contract  alliances,  establish  commerce,  and  to  do  all  other 
acts  and  things  which  independent  states  may  of  right  do." 

In  vindication  of  this  view,  I  read  from  Justice  Story's  Com- 
mentaries on  the  Constitution :  — 

^  See  Chisholm  v.  State  of  Georgia,  2  Dallas,  419. 


AMENDMENT  ABOLISHING  SLAVERY.  79 

"  The  Colonies  did  not  severally  act  for  themselves  and  proclaim  their 
own  independence.  It  is  true  that  some  of  the  states  had  previously 
formed  incipient  governments  for  themselves,  but  it  was  done  in  com- 
pliance with  the  recommendations  of  Congress The  declaration 

of  independence  of  all  the  Colonies  was  the  united  act  of  all.  It  was 
*  a  declaration  by  the  representatives  of  the  United  States  of  America  in 
Congress  assembled  * ;  *  by  the  delegates  appointed  by  the  good  people 
of  the  Colonies/  as  in  a  prior  declaration  of  rights  they  were  called.  It 
was  not  an  act  done  by  the  State  governments  then  organized ;  nor  by 
persons  chosen  by  them.  It  was  emphatically  the  act  of  the  whole 
people  of  the  United  Colonies,  by  the  instrumentality  of  their  representa- 
tives, chosen  for  that  among  other  purposes.  It  was  not  an  act  compe- 
tent to  the  State  governments,  or  any  of  them,  as  organized  under  their 
charters,  to  adopt  Those  charters  neither  contemplated  the  case  nor 
provided  for  it.  It  was  an  act  of  original  inherent  sovereignty  by  the 
people  themselves,  resulting  from  their  right  to  change  the  fonp  of  gov- 
ernment, and  to  institute  a  new  one  whenever  necessary  for  their  safety 
and  happiness.  So  the  Declaration  of  Independence  treats  it.  No 
State  had  presumed  of  itself  to  form  a  new  government,  or  to  provide 
for  the  exigencies  of  the  times,  without  consulting  Congress  on  the 
subject,  and  when  any  acted,  it  was  in  pursuance  of  the  recommenda- 
tion of  Congress.  It  was,  therefore,  the  achievement  of  the  whole  for 
the  benefit  of  the  whole. 

"  The  people  of  the  United  Colonies  made  the  United  Colonies  free 
and  independent  States,  and  absolved  them  from  all  allegiance  to  the 
British  Crown.  The  Declaration  of  Independence  has  accordingly 
always  been  treated  as  an  act  of  paramount  and  sovereign  authority, 
complete  and  perfect  per  se,  and  ipso  facto  working  an  entire  dissolution 
of  all  political  connection  with  and  allegiance  to  Great  Britain.  And  this, 
not  merely  as  a  practical  fact,  but  in. a  legal  and  constitutional  view  of 
the  matter  by  courts  of  justice."  ^ 

When  the  people  of  the  Colonies  became  free,  having  with- 
drawn sovereignty  from  the  Crown  of  Great  Britain,  where  did 
they  lodge  it?  Not  in  the  States;  but, so  far  as  they  delegated 
it  at  all,  they  lodged  it  in  the  Revolutionary  Congress  then  sitting 
in  Philadelphia.  My  colleague  dissents.  I  ask  his  attention 
again  to  the  language  of  this  distinguished  commentator :  — 

"  In  the  next  place,  we  have  seen  that  the  power  to  do  this  act  was 
not  derived  from  the  State  governments,  nor  was  it  done  generally  with 
their  co-operation.  The  question  then  naturally  presents  itself,  if  it  is 
to  be  considered  as  a  national  act,  in  what  manner  did  the  Colonies 

1  Book  II.  Sec.  211. 


8o  AMENDMENT  ABOLISHING  SLAVERY. 

become  a  nation,  and  in  what  manner  did  Congress  become  possessed 
of  this  national  power?  The  true  answer  must  be,  that  as  soon  as 
Congress  assumed  powers  and  passed  measures  which  were  in  their 
nature  national,  to  that  extent  the  people  from  whose  acquiescence  and 
consent  they  took  effect  must  be  considered  as  agreeing  to  form  a 
nation."  * 

Mr.  Pendleton.  I  desire  to  ask  my  colleague  from  what  power  the 
delegates  who  sat  in  that  Congress  derived  their  authority  to  make  the 
Declaration ;  whether  they  did  not  derive  it  from  the  Colonies,  or  the 
States,  if  the  gentleman  prefers  that  word,  and  whether  each  delegate 
did  not  speak  in  the  Congress  for  the  State  government  which  author- 
ized him  to  speak  there  ? 

I  say,  in  answer  to  the  point  the  gentleman  makes,  as  I  have 
already  said,  and  in  the  language  of  this  distinguished  com- 
mentator, that  the  moment  the  Revolutionary  Congress  assumed 
national  prerogatives,  and  the  people  by  their  silence  consented, 
that  moment  the  people  of  the  Colonies  were  constituted  a  na- 
tion, and  that  Revolutionary  Congress  became  the  authorized 
government  of  the  nation.  But  the  Declaration  was  made 
"by  the  authority  of  the  good  people,"  and  hence  it  was  their 
declaration. 

Mr.  Pendleton.  Will  the  gentleman  permit  me  to  ask  him  whether 
from  that  moment  they  became  the  representatives  of  the  nation,  or 
whether  they  still  retained  their  position  as  representatives  of  the 
States  ? 

They  were  both.  They  were  still  representatives  of  the 
States;  but  the  new  function  of  national  representatives  was 
added.  They  then  took  upon  them  that  which  now  belongs  to 
the  gentleman,  the  twofold  quality  of  State  citizenship  and 
national  citizenship.  The  gentleman  is  twice  a  citizen,  subject 
to  two  jurisdictions ;  and  so  were  they. 

I  shall  still  further  fortify  my  position  by  reading  again  from 
Justice  Story :  — 

"  From  the  moment  of  the  Declaration  of  Independence,  if  not  for 
most  purposes  at  an  antecedent  period,  the  United  Colonies  must  be 
considered  as  being  a  nation  de  facto,  having  a  general  government 
over  it,  created  and  acting  by  the  general  consent  of  the  people  of  all 
the  Colonies.  The  powers  of  that  government  were  not,  and  indeed 
could  not,  be  well  defined.    But  still  its  exclusive  sovereignty  in  many 

^  Book  II.  Sec.  213. 


AMENDMENT  ABOLISHING   SLAVERY.  8i 

cases  was  firmly  established,  and  its  controlling  power  over  the  States 
was  in  most,  if  not  in  all  national  measures,  universally  admitted."  ^ 

III.  On  the  1st  of  March,  1781,  the  sovereignty  of  the  na- 
tion was  lodged,  by  the  people,  in  the  Articles  of  Confedera- 
tion. The  government  thus  formed,  was  a  confederacy.  Its 
Constitution  might  properly  be  styled  a  **  Compact  of  Confed- 
eration," though  by  its  terms  it  established  a  "  perpetual  union/* 
and  left  small  ground  for  the  doctrine  of  secession. 

IV.  On  the  21st  of  June,  1788,^  our  national  sovereignty 
was  lodged,  by  the  people,  in  the  Constitution  of  the  United 
States,  where  it  still  resides,  and  for  its  preservation  our  armies 
are  to-day  in  the  field.  In  all  these  stages  of  development, 
from  colonial  dependence  to  full-orbed  nationality,  the  people, 
not  the  States,  have  been  omnipotent.  They  have  abolished, 
established,  altered,  and  amended,  as  suited  their  sovereign 
pleasure.  For  the  greater  security  of  liberty,  they  chose  to 
distribute  the  functions  of  government.  They  left  to  each  State 
the  regulation  of  its  local  and  municipal  affairs,  and  endowed 
the  Federal  republic  with  the  high  functions  of  national  sover- 
eignty. They  made  the  Constitution.  That  great  charter  tells 
its  own  story  best  in  the  preamble:  — 

"  We,  the  people  of  the  United  States,  in  order  to  form  a  more  perfect 
union,  establish  justice,  insure  domestic  tranquillity,  provide  for  the 
common  defence,  promote  the  general  welfare,  and  secure  the  blessings 
of  liberty  to  ourselves  and  our  posterity,  do  ordain  and  establish  this 
Constitution  for  the  United  States  of  America." 

Not  '*We,  the  sovereign  States,"  do  enter  into  a  league  or  form 
a  "  compact  of  confederation.*' 

If  the  gentleman  looks,  then,  for  a  kind  of  political  '*  apos- 
tolic succession  '*  of  American  sovereignty,  he  will  find  that 
neither  Colonies  nor  States  were  in  the  royal  line ;  but  this  is 
the  genealogy :  first,  the  Crown  and  Parliament  of  Great  Brit- 
ain ;  second,  the  Revolutionary  Congress ;  third,  the  Articles  of 
Confederation ;  fourth,  and  now,  the  Constitution  of  the  United 
States ;  and  all  this  by  the  authority  of  the  people.  Now,  if  no 
one  of  the  Colonics  was  sovereign  and  independent,  when  and 
how  did  any  of  the  States  become  so?  The  gentleman  must 
show  us  by  what  act  it  was  done,  and  where  the  deed  was  re- 

^  Story  on  the  Constitution,  Book  II.  Sec.  215. 

'  The  date  of  the  ratification  of  the  Constitution  by  the  ninth  State,  —  New 
Hampshire. 
VOL  L  6 


82  AMENDMENT  ABOLISHING   SLAVERY. 

corded.  I  think  I  have  shown  that  his  position  has  no  foundation 
in  history,  and  the  argument  based  upon  it  falls  to  the  ground. 

In  framing  and  establishing  the  Constitution,  what  restrictions 
were  laid  upon  the  people?  Absolutely  no  human  power  be- 
yond themselves.  No  barriers  confined  them  but  the  laws  of 
nature,  the  laws  of  God,  their  love  of  justice,  and  their  aspira- 
tions for  liberty.  Over  that  limitless  expanse  they  ranged  at 
will,  and  out  of  such  materials  as  their  wisdom  selected  they 
built  the  stately  fabric  of  our  government.  That  Constitution, 
with  its  Amendments,  is  the  latest  and  the  greatest  utterance 
of  American  sovereignty.  The  hour  is  now  at  hand  when  that 
majestic  sovereign,  for  the  benignant  purpose  of  securing  still 
further  the  **  blessings  of  liberty,"  is  about  to  put  forth  another 
oracle,  —  is  about  to  declare  that  universal  freedom  shall  be  the 
supreme  law  of  the  land.  Show  me  the  power  that  is  author- 
ized to  forbid  it. 

The  lapse  of  eighty  years  has  not  abated  one  jot  or  tittle  from 
the  original  sovereignty  of  the  American  people.  They  made 
the  Constitution  what  it  is.  They  could  have  made  it  otherwise 
then ;  they  can  make  it  otherwise  now. 

But  my  colleague  ^  has  planted  himself  on  the  intent  of  the 
Constitution.  On  that  point  I  ask  him  by  what  means  the 
will  of  this  nation  reaches  the  citizen,  with  its  obligations? 
Only  as  that  will  is  revealed  in  the  logical  and  grammatical 
meaning  of  the  words  and  phrases  of  the  written  Consti- 
tution. Beyond  this,  there  is,  there  can  be,  no  legal  force  or 
potency.  If  the  amending  power  granted  in  the  Constitution 
be  in  any  way  abridged  or  restricted,  such  restriction  must  be 
found  in  the  just  meaning  of  the  instrument  itself  Any  other 
doctrine  would  overthrow  the  whole  fabric  of  jurisprudence. 
What  are  the  limitations  of  the  amending  power?  Plainly  and 
only  these :  "  That  no  amendment  which  may  be  made  prior  to 
the  year  1808  shall  in  any  manner  affect  the  first  and  fourth 
clauses  in  the  ninth  section  of  the  first  Article;  and  that  no 
State,  without  its  consent,  shall  be  deprived  of  its  equal  suffrage 
in  the  Senate."  ^  The  first  restriction,  being  bounded  by  the 
year  1808,  is  of  course  functtis  officio,  and  no  longer  operative; 
the  last  is  still  binding.  The  gentleman  does  not  claim  that  any 
other  sentence  is  restrictive ;  but  he  would  have  us  believe  there 
is  something  not  written  down,  a  tertium  quid,  a  kind  of  exha- 

*  Mr.  Pendleton.  a  Constitution,  Art.  V. 


AMENDMENT  ABOLISHING  SLAVERY.  83 

lation  rising  out  of  the  depths  of  the  Constitution,  that  has  the 
power  of  itself  to  stay  the  hand  of  the  people  of  this  great 
republic  in  their  attempt  to  put  away  an  evil  that  is  deleterious 
to  the  nation's  life.  He  would  lead  us  in  pursuit  of  these 
intangible  shadows,  would  place  us  in  the  dominion  of  vague, 
invisible  powers,  that  exhale,  like  odors,  from  the  Constitution, 
but  are  more  potent  than  the  Constitution  itself.  Such  an  ignis 
fatuus  I  am  not  disposed  to  follow,  especially  when  it  leads  to 
a  hopeful  future  for  human  slavery.  • 

I  cannot  agree  with  my  colleague,  and  the  distinguished 
gentleman  from  Massachusetts,^  who  unite  in  declaring  that  no 
amendment  to  the  Constitution  can  be  made  which  would  be  in 
conflict  with  its  objects  as  declared  in  the  preamble.  What  spe- 
cial immunity  was  granted  to  that  first  paragraph?  Could  not 
our  forefathers  have  adopted  a  different  preamble  in  the  begin- 
ning? Could  they  not  have  employed  other  words,  and  declared 
other  objects,  as  the  basis  of  their  Constitution?  If  they  could 
have  made  a  different  preamble,  declaring  other  and  different 
objects,  so  can  we  now  declare  other  objects  in  our  amendments. 
The  preamble  is  itself  amendable,  just  as  is  every  clause  of  the 
Constitution,  excepting  only  the  ones  already  referred  to.  But 
this  point  is  not  necessary  in  the  case  we  are  now  considering. 
We  need  no  change  of  the  preamble  to  enable  us  to  abolish 
slavery.  It  is  only  by  the  final  overthrow  of  slavery  that  the 
objects  of  the  preamble  can  be  fully  realized.  By  that  means 
alone  can  we  "establish  justice,  insure  domestic  tranquillity,  and 
secure  the  blessings  of  liberty  to  ourselves  and  our  posterity." 

The  gentleman  2  puts  another  case  which  I  wish  to  notice.  He 
says  that  nine  of  the  thirteen  original  Colonies  adopted  the  Con- 
stitution, and  by  its  very  terms  it  was  binding  only  on  the  nine. 
So  if  three  fourths  of  the  States  should  pass  this  amendment  it 
would  not  bind  the  other  fourth.  In  commenting  upon  this 
clause,  Judge  Tucker,  of  Virginia,  in  his  appendix  to  Blackstone, 
says  that  if  the  four  Colonies  had  not  adopted  the  Constitution 
they  would  have  been  a  foreign  people.  The  writers  of  the 
Federalist  hold  a  different  doctrine,  and  fall  back  upon  the  origi- 
nal right  of  the  nation  to  preserve  itself,  and  say  that  the  nine 
States  would  have  had  the  right  to  compel  the  other  four  to 
come  in.  But  the  question  is  unimportant,  from  the  fact  that 
they  did  come  in  and  adopt  the  Constitution.     The  contract 

1  Mr.  Boutwell.  *  Mr.  Pendleton. 


84  AMENDMENT  ABOLISHING  SLA  VER  K 

once  ratified,  and  obligations  once  taken,  they  became  an  inte- 
gral  part  of  an  indivisible  nation,  as  indivisible  as  a  state.  The 
argument  is  irrelevant;  for  the  mode  of  adopting  the  Constitu- 
tion is  one  thing,  the  mode  pointed  out  in  the  Constitution  for 
adopting  amendments  to  it  is  quite,  another.  The  two  have  no 
necessary  relation  to  each  other.  I  therefore  agree  with  my 
colleague  from  the  Columbus  district,^  that,  except  in  the  two 
cases  of  limitation,  two  thirds  of  Congress  and  three  fourths  of 
the  States  can  do  anything  in  the  way  of  amendment,  being 
bounded  only  by  their  sense  of  duty  to  God  and  the  country. 
The  field  is  then  fully  open  before  us. 

On  the  justice  of  the  amendment  itself  no  arguments  are 
necessary.  The  reasons  crowd  in  on  every  side.  To  enumer- 
ate them  would  be  a  work  of  superfluity.  To  me  it  is  a  matter 
of  great  surprise  that  gentlemen  on  the  other  side  should  wish 
to  detey  the  death  of  slavery.  I  can  only  account  for  it  on  the 
ground  of  long-continued  familiarity  and  friendship.  I  should 
be  glad  to  hear  them  say  of  slavery,  their  beloved,  as  did  the 
jealous  Moor, — 

"  Yet  she  must  die,  else  she  ni  betray  more  men." 

Has  she  not  betrayed  and  slain  men  enough?  Are  they  not 
strewn  over  a  thousand  battle-fields?  Is  not  this  Moloch  al- 
ready gorged  with  the  bloody  feast?  Its  best  friends  know  that 
its  final  hour  is  fast  approaching.  The  avenging  gods  are  on 
its  track.  Their  feet  are  not  now,  as  of  old,  shod  with  wool,  nor 
slow  and  stately  stepping,  but  winged  like  Mercury's  to  bear  the 
swift  message  of  vengeance.  No  human  power  can  avert  the 
final  catastrophe. 

I  did  not  intend,  Mr.  Speaker,  ever  again  to  address  the 
House  on  the  subject  of  slavery.  I  had  hoped  we  might,  with- 
out a  struggle,  at  once  and  forever  remove  it  from  the  theatre 
of  American  politics,  and  turn  our  thoughts  to  those  other  and 
larger  fields  now  opening  before  us.  But  when  I  saw  the  bold 
and  determined  efforts  put  forth  in  this  House  yesterday  for  its 
preservation,  I  could  not  resist  my  inclination  to  strike  one  blow, 
in  the  hope  of  hastening  its  doom. 

»  Mr.  Cox. 


SUFFRAGE  AND   SAFETY. 

ORATION    DELIVERED    AT    RAVENNA,    OHIO. 

July  4,  1865. 


July  4,  i860,  Mr.  Garfield  delivered  an  oration  at  Ravenna,  Ohio, 
discussing  such  topics  as  generally  drew  the  attention  of  cultivated  men 
on  such  occasions  before  the  war.  Again,  July  4,  1865,  ^^  delivered  a 
second  oration  at  the  same  place.  He  began  the  second  oration  with 
calling  attention  to  the  changes  that  had  been  wrought  since  the  first 
one  was  delivered.  He  traced  the  progress  of  the  sentiment  of  liberty 
from  the  opening  of  the  war  to  the  Emancipation  Proclamation,  and  then 
to  the  coming  of  peace.    The  results  of  the  war,  he  said,  were  these  :  — 

1.  A  clear  discernment  upon  the  part  of  the  Northern  people  of  the 
wickedness  of  slavery. 

2.  A  stronger  nationality.  Out  of  the  ruins  of  slavery  and  treason  had 
grown  up  a  stronger  and  grander  nationality  than  we  had  ever  known 
before.  An  old  American  statesman  said  that  the  stability  of  the  govern- 
ment would  depend  upon  its  power  directly  to  enforce  its  laws.  The 
power  of  our  government  had  been  amply  demonstrated  by  the  gen- 
erous response  to  its  calls  for  men  and  money  for  the  war.  We 
understand  now  that  we  do  not  owe  allegiance  to  Washington  by  way 
of  Columbus,  but  in  an  air  line, 

3.  The  government  had  been  proved  stronger  than  any  of  its  depend- 
encies. Cotton  was  declared  King,  but  Cotton  did  not  save  the  re- 
bellion. The  Republic  was  greater  than  any  product,  than  any  interest, 
than  any  State  or  man. 

4.  The  character  of  the  people  had  grown.  "  We  have  more  faith 
in  the  American  people  than  before  the  war.  We  have  learned  to  know 
them  and  respect  them.  The  boys  who  went  from  us  come  back  to  us 
solid  men.  They  have  been  engaged  in  a  righteous  work.  No  man 
can  be  inspired  with  a  great  and  noble  purpose  without  being  better  for 
it  The  destiny  of  the  nation  is  safer  and  surer  than  ever  before. 
We  have  learned  how  to  appreciate  its  beneficence  and  its  virtue,  and 


\ 


86  SUFFRAGE  AND  SAFETY. 

we  shall  never  be  likely  to  forget  those  who  have  come  back  to  us 
from  its  battle-fields." 

Before  this  point  was  reached,  Mr.  Garfield  had  divided  the  national 
drama  into  two  acts,  the  military  act  and  the  civil  or  the  restorative  act. 
Now  he  addressed  himself  to  the  second  of  these  acts,  or  more  narrowly 
the  suffrage  question.  This  oration  was  not  fully  reported,  but  the 
following  portion,  relating  to  suffrage,  was  prepared  in  manuscript  by  the 
author,  and  was  printed  at  the  time  from  his  notes. 


FELLOW-CITIZENS,  — We  may  now  say  that  the  past, 
with  all  its  wealth  of  glorious  associations,  is  secure. 
The  air  is  filled  with  brightness;  the  horizon  is  aglow  with 
hope.  The  future  is  full  of  magnificent  possibilities.  But  God 
has  committed  to  us  a  trust  which  we  must  not,  we  dare  not 
overlook.  By  the  dispensation  of  his  Providence,  the  chains 
have  been  stricken  from  four  millions  of  the  inhabitants  of  this 
Republic,  and  he  has  shown  us  the  truth  of  that  early  utterance 
of  Abraham  Lincoln's,  —  **This  is  a  world  of  compensations; 
and  he  who  would  be  no  slave  must  have  no  slave.  Those  who 
deny  freedom  to  others  deserve  it  not  for  themselves,  and  under 
a  just  God  cannot  long  retain  it." 

In  the  great  crisis  of  the  war,  God  brought  us  face  to  face 
with  the  mighty  truth,  that  we  must  lose  our  own  freedom  or 
grant  it  to  the  slave.  In  the  extremity  of  our  distress,  we  called 
upon  the  black  man  to  help  us  save  the  Republic ;  and,  amid 
the  very  thunders  of  battle,  we  made  a  covenant  with  him, 
sealed  both  with  his  blood  and  with  ours,  and  witnessed  by 
Jehovah,  that,  when  the  nation  was  redeemed,  he  should  be 
free,  and  share  with  us  its  glories  and  its  blessings.  The  Omnis- 
cient Witness  will  appear  in  judgment  against  us  if  we  do  not 
fulfil  that  covenant.  Have  we  done  it?  Have  we  given  freedom 
to  the  black  man?  What  is  freedom?  Is  it  mere  negation? 
Is  it  the  bare  privilege  of  not  being  chained,  —  of  not  being 
bought  and  sold,  branded  and  scourged?  If  this  is  all,  then 
freedom  is  a  bitter  mockery,  a  cruel  delusion,  and  it  may  well 
be  questioned  whether  slavery  were  not  better.  But  liberty  is 
no  negation.  It  is  a  substantial,  tangible  reality.  It  is  the 
realization  of  those  imperishable  truths  of  the  Declaration, 
**  that  all  men  are  created  equal " ;   that  the  sanction  of  all  just 


SUFFRAGE  AND  SAFETY.  87 

government  is  "  the  consent  of  the  governed."  Can  these  be 
realized  until  each  man  has  a  right  to  be  heard  on  all  matters 
relating  to  himself?  The  plain  truth  is,  that  each  man  knows 
his  own  interest  best  It  has  been  said,  "  If  he  is  compelled  to 
pay,  if  he  may  be  compelled  to  fight,  if  he  be  required  implicitly 
to  obey,  he  should  be  legally  entitled  to  be  told  what  for ;  to 
have  his  consent  asked,  and  his  opinion  counted  at  what  it  is 
worth.  There  ought  to  be  no  pariahs  in  a  full-grown  and  civil- 
ized nation,  no  persons  disqualified  except  through  their  own 
default."  I  would  not  insult  your  intelligence  by  discussing  so 
plain  a  truth,  had  not  the  passion  and  prejudice  of  this  genera- 
tion called  in  question  the  very  axioms  of  the  Declaration. 

But  it  will  be  asked,  Is  it  safe  to  admit  to  the  elective  fran- 
chise the  great  mass  of  ignorant  and  degraded  blacks,  so  lately 
slaves?      Here  indeed  is  the  great  practical  question,  to  the 
solution  of  which  should  be  brought  all  the  wisdom  and  en- 
lightenment of  our  people.      I  am  fully  persuaded  that  some 
degree  of  intelligence  and  culture  should  be  required  as  a  quali- 
fication for  the  right  of  suffrage.     I  have  no  doubt  that  it  would 
be  better  if  no  man  were  allowed  to  vote  who  cannot  read  his 
ballot  or  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States,  and  write  his 
name  or  copy  in  a  legible  hand  a  sentence  from  the  Declaration 
of  Independence.     Make  any  such  wise  restriction  of  suffrage, 
but  let  it  apply  to  all  alike.     Let  us  not  commit  ourselves  to 
the  absurd  and  senseless  dogma  that  the  color  of  the  skin  shall 
be  the  basis  of  suffrage,  the  talisman  of  liberty.     I  admit  that 
it  is  perilous  to  confer  the  franchise  upon  the  ignorant  and  de- 
graded; but  if  an  educational  test  cannot  be  established,  let 
suffrage  be  extended  to  all  men  of  proper  age,  regardless  of 
color.     It  may  well  be  questioned  whether  the  negro  does  not 
understand  the  nature  of  our  institutions  better  than  the  equally 
ignorant  foreigner.'  He  was  intelligent  enough  to  understand 
from  the  beginning  of  the  war  that  the  destiny  of  his  race  was 
involved  in  it.     He  was  intelligent  enough  to  be  true  to  that 
Union  which  his  educated  and  traitorous  master  was  endeavor- 
ing to  destroy.     He  came  to  us  in  the  hour  of  our  sorest  need, 
and  by  his  aid,  under  God,  the  Republic  was  saved.     Shall  we 
now  be  guilty  of  the  unutterable  meanness,  not  only  of  thrust- 
ing him  beyond  the  pale  of  its  blessings,  but  of  committing  his 
destiny  to  the  tender  mercies  of  those  pardoned   rebels  who 
have  been  so  reluctantly  compelled  to  take  their  feet  from  his 


88  SUFFRAGE  AND  SAFETY. 

neck  and  their  hands  from  his  throat?  But  some  one  says 
it  is  dangerous  at  this  time  to  make  new  experiments.  I  an- 
swer, it  is  always  safe  to  do  justice.  However,  to  grant  suffrage 
to  the  black  man  in  this  country  is  not  innovation,  but  restora- 
tion. It  is  a  return  to  the  ancient  principles  and  practices  of 
the  fathers.  Let  me  refer  you  to  a  few  facts  in  our  history 
which  have  been  but  little  studied  by' the  people  and  politicians 
of  this  generation. 

1.  During  the  war  of  the  Revolution,  and  in  1788,  the  date  of 
the  adoption  of  our  national  Constitution,  there  was  but  one 
State  among  the  thirteen  whose  constitution  refused  the  right  of 
suffrage  to  the  negro.  That  State  was  South  Carolina.  Some, 
it  is  true,  established  a  property  qualification ;  all  made  freedom 
a  prerequisite;  but  none  save  South  Carolina  made  color  a 
condition  of  suffrage. 

2.  The  Federal  Constitution  makes  no  such  distinction,  nor 
did  the  Articles  of  Confederation.  In  the  Congress  of  the  Con- 
federation, on  the  25th  of  June,  1778,  the  fourth  article  was 
under  discussion.  It  provided  that  **  the  free  inhabitants  of 
each  of  these  States  —  paupers,  vagabonds,  and  fugitives  from 
justice  excepted  —  shall  be  entitled  to  all  privileges  and  im- 
munities of  free  citizens  in  the  several  States."  The  delegates 
from  South  Carolina  moved  to  insert  between  the  words  '*  free 
inhabitants"  the  word  "white,"  thus  denying  the  privileges  and 
immunities  of  citizenship  to  the  colored  man.  According  to 
the  rules  of  the  convention,  each  State  had  but  one  vote. 
Eleven  States  voted  on  the  question.  One  was  divided ;  two 
voted  aye ;  and  eight  voted  no.^  It  was  thus  early,  and  almost 
unanimously,  decided  ^zX,  freedom,  not  color,  should  be  the  test 
of  citizenship. 

3.  No  Federal  legislation  prior  to  1 8 12  placed  any  restriction 
on  the  right  of  suffrage  in  consequence  of  the  color  of  the  citi- 
zen. From  1789  to  1812  Congress  passed  ten  separate  laws 
establishing  new  Territories.  In  all  these,  freedom,  and  not 
color,  was  the  basis  of  suffrage. 

4.  After  nearly  a  quarter  of  a  century  of  prosperity  under  the 
Constitution,  the  spirit  of  slavery  so  far  triumphed  over  the  early 
principles  and  practices  of  the  government  that,  in  1812,  South 
Carolina  and  her  followers  in  Congress  succeeded  in  inserting 
the  word  "  white  "  in  the  suffrage  clause  of  the  act  establishing 

1  Elliot's  Debates,  Vol.  I.  p.  90. 


SUFFRAGE  AND  SAFETY.  89 

a  territorial  government  for  Missouri.  One  by  one  the  Slave 
States,  and  many  of  the  free  States,  gave  way  before  the  crusade 
of  slavery  against  negro  citizenship.  In  181 7,  Connecticut 
caught  the  infection,  and  in  her  constitution  she  excluded  the 
negro  from  the  ballot-box.  In  every  other  New  England  State 
his  ancient  right  of  suffrage  has  remained  and  still  remains  un- 
disturbed. Free  negroes  voted  in  Maryland  till  1833  ;  in  North 
Carolina,  till  1835  ;  in  Pennsylvania,  till  1838.  It  was  the  boast 
of  Cave  Johnson  of  Tennessee  that  he  owed  his  election  to  Con- 
gress in  1828  to  the  free  negroes  who  worked  in  his  mills.  They 
were  denied  the  suffrage  in  1834,  under  the  new  constitution  of 
Tennessee,  by  a  vote  of  thirty-three  to  twenty-three.  As  new 
States  were  formed,  their  constitutions  for  the  most  part  ex- 
cluded the  negro  from  citizenship.  Then  followed  the  shameful 
catalogue  of  black  laws  —  expatriation  and  ostracism  in  every 
form  —  which  have  so  deeply  disgraced  the  record  of  legisla- 
tion in  many  of  the  States. 

I  afRrm,  therefore,  that  our  present  position  is  one  of  apos- 
tasy ;  and  to  give  the  ballot  to  the  negro  will  be  no  innovation, 
but  a  return  to  the  old  paths,  —  a  restoration  of  that  spirit  of 
liberty  to  which  the  sufferings  and  sacrifices  of  the  Revolution 
gave  birth. 

But  if  we  had  no  respect  for  the  early  practices  and  traditions 
of  our  fathers,  we  should  still  be  compelled  to  meet  the  practical 
question  which  will  very  soon  be  forced  upon  us  for  solution. 
The  necessity  of  putting  down  the  rebellion  by  force  of  arms 
was  no  more  imperative  than  is  that  of  restoring  law,  order,  and 
liberty  in  the  States  that  rebelled.  No  duty  can  be  more  sacred 
than  that  of  maintaining  and  perpetuating  the  freedom  which 
the  Proclamation  of  Emancipation  gave  to  the  loyal  black  men  of 
the  South.  If  they  are  to  be  disfranchised,  if  they  are  to  have 
no  voice  in  determining  the  conditions  under  which  they  are  to 
live  and  labor,  what  hope  have  they  for  the  future?  It  will  rest 
with  their  late  masters,  whose  treason  they  aided  to  thwart,  to 
determine  whether  negroes  shall  be  permitted  to  hold  property, 
to  enjoy  the  benefits  of  education,  to  enforce  contracts,  to  have 
access  to  the  courts  of  justice,  —  in  short,  to  enjoy  any  of  those 
rights  which  give  vitality  and  value  to  freedom.  Who  can  fail 
to  foresee  the  ruin  and  misery  that  await  this  race,  to  whom  the 
vision  of  freedom  has  been  presented  only  to  be  withdrawn, 
leaving  them  without  even  the  aid  which  the  master's  selfish 


90  SUFFRAGE  AND  SAFETY. 

commercial  interest  in  their  life  and  service  formerly  afforded 
them?  Will  these  negroes,  remembering  the  battle-fields  on 
which  two  hundred  thousand  of  their  number  bravely  fought, 
and  many  thousands  heroically  died,  submit  to  oppression  as 
tamely  and  peaceably  as  in  the  days  of  slavery?  Under  such 
conditions,  there  could  be  no  peace,  no  security,  no  prosperity. 
I  am  glad  to  be  able  to  fortify  my  position  on  this  point  by  the 
great  name  and  ability  of  Theophilus  Parsons,  of  the  Harvard 
Law  School.  In  discussing  the  necessity  of  negro  suffrage  at  a 
recent  public  meeting  in  Boston,  he  says :  — 

"  Some  of  the  Southern  States  have  among  their  statutes  a  law  pro- 
hibiting the  education  of  a  colored  man  under  a  heavy  penalty.  The 
whole  world  calls  this  most  inhuman,  most  infamous.  And  shall  we  say 
to  the  whites  of  those  States,  *  We  give  you  complete  and  exclusive  power 
of  legislating  about  the  education  of  the  blacks ;  but  beware,  for  if  you 
lift  them  by  education  from  their  present  condition,  you  do  it  under  the 
penalty  of  forfeiting  and  losing  your  supremacy?  *  Will  not  slavery,  with 
nearly  all  its  evils,  and  with  none  of  its  compensation,  come  back  at  once  ? 
Not  under  its  own  detested  name ;  it  will  call  itself  apprenticeship ;  it 
will  put  on  the  disguise  of  laws  to  prevent  pauperism,  by  providing  that 
every  colored  man  who  does  not  work  in  some  prescribed  way  shall  be 
arrested,  and  placed  at  the  disposal  of  the  authorities ;  or  it  will  do  its 
work  by  means  of  laws  regulating  wages  and  labor.  However  it  be 
done,  one  thing  is  certain :  if  we  take  from  the  slaves  all  the  protection 
and  defence  they  found  in  slavery,  and  withhold  from  them  all  power  of 
self-protection  and  self-defence,  the  race  must  perish,  and  we  shall  be 
their  destroyers." 

Another  patriotic  speaker  thus  justly  sums  up  his  conclu- 
sions :  **  We  must  choose  between  two  results.  With  these 
four  millions  of  negroes,  either  you  must  have  four  millions  of 
disfranchised,  disarmed,  untaught,  landless,  thriftless,  non-pro- 
ducing, non-consuming,  degraded  men ;  or  else  you  must  have 
four  millions  of  landholding,  industrious,  arms-bearing,  and  vot- 
ing population.     Choose  between  these  two !  " 

Bear  with  me,  fellow-citizens,  while  I  urge  still  another  con- 
sideration. By  the  Constitution,  only  three  fifths  of  the  slaves 
were  counted  in  forming  the  basis  of  Congressional  representa- 
tion. The  Proclamation  of  Emancipation  adds  the  other  two 
fifths,  which  at  the  next  census  will  be  more  than  two  millions. 
If  the  negro  be  denied  the  franchise,  and  the  size  of  the  House 
of  Representatives  remain  as  now,  we  shall  have  fifteen  addi- 


SUFFRAGE  AND  SAFETY.  91 

tional  members  of  Congress  from  the  States  lately  in  rebellion, 
without  the  addition  of  a  single  citizen  to  their  population,  and 
we  shall  have  fifteen  less  in  the  loyal  States.  This  will  not  only 
give  six  members  of  Congress  to  South  Carolina,  four  sevenths 
of  whose  people  are  negroes,  but  it  will  place  the  power  of  the 
State,  as  well  as  the  destiny  of  412,000  black  men,  in  the  hands 
of  the  20,000  white  men  (less  than  the  number  of  voters  in  our 
own  Congressional  district)  who,  under  the  restricted  suffrage 
of  that  undemocratic  State,  exercise  the  franchise.  Such  an 
unjust  and  unequal  distribution  of  power  would  breed  perpetual 
mischief.  The  evils  of  the  rotten  borough  system  of  England 
would  be  upon  us. 

Indeed,  we  can  find  no  more  instructive  lesson  on  the  whole  ^ 
question  of  suffrage  than  the  history  of  its  development  in  the 
British  empire.     For  more  than  four  centuries,  royal  preroga- 
tive and  the  rights  of  the  people  of  England  have  waged  per- 
petual warfare.     Often  the  result  has  appeared  doubtful,  often 
the  people  have  been  driven  to  the  wall,  but  they  have  always 
renewed   the  struggle  with   unfaltering   courage.     Often   have 
they  lost  the  battle,  but  they  have  always  won  the  campaign. 
Amidst  all  their  reverses,   each   generation   has   found   them 
stronger,  each  half-century  has  brought  them  its  year  of  jubi- 
lee, and  has  added  strength  to  the  bulwark  of  law  and  breadth 
to  the  basis  of  liberty.     This  contest  has  illustrated  again  and 
again  the  saying  that  "  eternal  vigilance  is  the  price  of  liberty." 
The  growth  of  a  city,  the  decay  of  a  borough,  the  establish- 
ment of  a  new  manufacture,  the  enlargement  of  commerce,  the 
recognition  of  a  new  power,  have,  each  in  its  turn,  added  new 
and  peculiar  elements  to  the  contest.     Hallam  says :  "  It  would 
be  difficult,  probably,  to  name  any  town  of  the  least  considera- 
tion in  the  fourteenth  and  fifteenth  centuries,  which  did  not,  at 
some  time  or  other,  return  members  to  Parliament.     This  is  so 
much  the  case,  that  if,  in  running    our  eyes  along  the  map, 
we  find  any  seaport,  as  Sunderland  or  Falmouth,  or  any  in- 
land town,  as  Leeds  or  Birmingham,  which  has  never  enjoyed 
the  elective  franchise,  we  may  conclude  at  once  that    it  has 
emerged  from  obscurity  since  the  reign  of  Henry  VIII."  ^     It 
was  a  doctrine   old   as  the   common  law,   maintained  by  our 
Anglo-Saxon  ancestors  centuries  before  it  was  planted  in  the 
American  Colonies,  that  taxation  and  representation  were  insep- 

>  Constitutional  History  of  England,  Chap.  XIII. 


92  SUFFRAGE  AND  SAFETY. 

arable  correlatives,  the  one  a  duty  based  upon  the  other  as  a 
right  But  the  neglect  of  the  government  to  provide  a  system 
which  made  the  Parliamentary  representation  conform  to  the 
increase  of  population,  and  the  growth  and  decadence  of  cities 
and  boroughs,  had,  by  almost  imperceptible  degrees,  disfran- 
chised the  great  mass  of  the  British  people,  and  placed  the 
legislative  power  in  the  hands  of  a  few  leading  families  of  the 
realm.  Towards  the  close  of  the  last  century  the  question  of 
Parliamentary  reform  assumed  a  definite  shape,  and  since  that 
time  has  constituted  one  of  the  most  prominent  features  in  Brit- 
ish politics.  It  was  found  not  only  that  the  basis  of  representa- 
tion was  unequal  and  unjust,  but  that  the  right  of  the  elective 
franchise  was  granted  to  but  few  of  the  inhabitants,  and  was 
regulated  by  no  fixed  and  equitable  rule.  Here  I  may  quote 
from  May's  Constitutional  History :  — 

"  In  some  of  the  corporate  towns,  the  inhabitants  pajring  scot  and  lot, 
and  freemen,  were  admitted  to  vote ;  in  some,  the  freemen  only ;  and  in 
many,  none  but  the  governing  body  of  the  corporation.  At  Buckingham 
and  at  Bewdley  the  right  of  election  was  confined  to  the  bailiff  and  twelve 
burgesses ;  at  Bath,  to  the  mayor,  ten  aldermen,  and  twenty-four  com- 
mon-councilmen ;  at  Salisbury,  to  the  mayor  and  corporation,  consisting 
of  fifty-six  persons.  And  where  more  popular  rights  of  election  were 
acknowledged,  there  were  often  very  few  inhabitants  to  exercise  them. 
Gatton  enjoyed  a  liberal  franchise.  All  freeholders  and  inhabitants  pay- 
ing scot  and  lot  were  entitled  to  vote,  but  they  only  amounted  to  seven. 
At  Tavistock  all  freeholders  rejoiced  in  the  franchise,  but  there  were 
only  ten.  At  St.  Michael  all  inhabitants  paying  scot  and  lot  were  elec- 
tors, but  there  were  only  seven. 

"  In  1 793  the  Society  of  the  Friends  of  the  People  were  prepared  to 
prove  that  in  England  and  Wales  seventy  members  were  returned  by 
thirty-five  places  in  which  there  were  scarcely  any  electors  at  all ;  that 
ninety  members  were  returned  by  forty-six  places  with  less  than  fifty 
electors ;  and  thirty-seven  members  by  nineteen  places  having  not  more 
than  one  hundred  electors.  Such  places  were  returning  members,  while 
Leeds,  Birmingham,  and  Manchester  were  unrepresented;  and  the 
members  whom  they  sent  to  Parliament  were  the  nominees  of  peers  and 
other  wealthy  patrons.  No  abuse  was  more  flagrant  than  the  direct  con- 
trol of  peers  over  the  constitution  of  the  Lower  House.  The  Duke  of 
Norfolk  was  represented  by  eleven  members ;  Lord  Lonsdale  by  nine ; 
Lord  Darlington  by  seven ;  the  Duke  of  Rutland,  the  Marquis  of  Buck- 
ingham, and  Lord  Carrington,  each  by  six.  Seats  were  held  in  both 
Houses  alike  by  hereditary  right."  ^ 

1  May's  Constitutional  History  uf  England,  (Boston,  i86S,)  Vol.  I.  pp.  266,  267. 


SUFFRAGE  AND  SAFETY.  93 

♦ 

Scotland  and  Ireland  were  virtually  disfranchised ;  Edinburgh 
and  Glasgow,  the  two  largest  cities  of  Scotland,  had  each  a 
constituency  of  only  thirty-three  members.  A  majority  of  the 
members  of  the  House  of  Commons  were  elected  by  six  thou- 
sand voters.  This  state  of  affairs  afforded  ready  opportunities 
for  the  moneyed  aristocracy  to  buy  seats  in  Parliament,  by  the 
purchase  of  a  few  voters  in  rotten  boroughs ;  and  also  enabled 
the  ministry  to  secure  a  servile  majority  in  the  Commons.  The 
corruption  resulting  from  these  conditions,  as  exhibited  in  the 
latter  half  of  the  eighteenth  century,  can  hardly  be  realized  by 
the  present  generation.  They  afford,  however,  an  illustration 
of  the  universal  truth,  that  a  government  which  does  not  draw 
its  inspiration  of  liberty,  justice,  and  morality  from  the  people 
will  soon  become  both  tyrannical  and  corrupt. 

In  these  facts  we  discover  the  cause  of  the  popular  discontent 
and  outbreaks  which  have  so  frequently  threatened  the  stability 
of  the  British  throne  and  the  peace  of  the  English  people.  As 
early  as  1770  Lord  Chatham  said,  **  By  the  end  of  this  century, 
either  the  Parliament  must  be  reformed  from  within,  or  it  will 
be  reformed  with  a  vengeance  from  without."  The  disastrous 
failure  of  Republicanism  in  France  delayed  the  fulfilment  of  his 
prophecy;  but  when,  in  1832,  the  people  were  on  the  verge  of 
revolt,  the  government  was  reluctantly  compelled  to  pass  the 
celebrated  Reform  Bill,  which  has  taken  its  place  in  English 
history  beside  Magna  Charta  and  the  Bill  of  Rights.  It  equal- 
ized the  basis  of  representation,  and  extended  the  suffrage  to 
the  middle  class;  and  though  the  property  qualification  prac- 
tically excluded  the  workingman,  a  great  step  upward  had  been 
taken,  a  concession  had  been  made  which  must  be  followed  by 
others.  The  struggle  is  again  going  on.  Its  omens  are  not 
doubtful.  The  great  storm  through  which  American  liberty 
has  just  passed  gave  a  temporary  triumph  to  the  enemies  of 
popular  right  in  England.  But  our  recent  glorious  triumph  is 
the  signal  of  disaster  to  tyranny,  and  victory  for  the  people. 
The  liberal  party  in  England  are  jubilant,  and  will  never  rest 
until  the  ballot,  that  "silent  vindicator  of  liberty,"  is  in  the  hand 
of  the  workingman,  and  the  temple  of  English  liberty  rests  on 
the  broad  foundation  of  popular  suffrage.  Let  us  learn  from 
this,  that  suffrage  and  safety y  like  liberty  and  unio?t,  are  one  and  s, 
inseparable. 

It  is  related  in  ancient  fable  that  one  of  the  gods,  dissatisfied    A 


94  SUFFRAGE  AND  SAFETY. 

with  the  decrees  of  destiny,  attempted  to  steal  the  box  in  which 
were  kept  the  decrees  of  the  Fates ;  but  he  found  that  it  was 
fastened  to  the  throne  of  Jupiter  by  a  golden  chain,  and  to  re- 
move it  would  pull  down  the  pillars  of  heaven.  So  is  the 
sacred  ballot-box,  which  holds  the  decrees  of  freemen,  linked 
by  the  indissoluble  bond  of  necessity  to  the  pillars  of  the  Re- 
public ;  and  he  who  tampers  with  its  decrees,  or  plucks  it  away 
from  its  place  in  our  temple,  will  perish  amid  the  ruins  he  has 
wrought. 

But  in  view  of  the  lessons  of  the  years  of  contest  that  have 
crowned  the  nation  with  victory,  with  the  inspirations  of  liberty 
and  truth  brightly  lighting  the  pathway  of  the  people,  who  can 
doubt  the  equity  of  their  voice  ?  The  nations  of  the  earth  miist 
not  be  allowed  to  point  at  us  as  pitiful  examples  of  weak 
selfishness.  In  the  exigencies  of  this  hour,  our  duty  must  be 
so  done  that  the  eternal  scrolls  of  justice  will  ever  bear  record 
of  the  nobility  of  the  nation's  heart  Animated,  inspired,  gen- 
erous, fearless,  in  the  work  of  liberty  and  truth,  long  will  the 
Republic  live,  a  bulwark  of  God's  immutable  justice. 


RESTORATION   OF  THE  SOUTHERN 

STATES. 

SPEECH  DELIVERED  IN  THE  HOUSE  OF  REPRESENTATIVES, 

February  i,  1866. 


The  title  that  this  speech  bears  in  the  pamphlet  edition  issued  by  its 
authof  is  "  Freedmen's  Bureau  —  Restoration  of  the  Southern  States." 

"  An  Act  to  establish  a  Bureau  for  the  Relief  of  Freedmen  and  Refu- 
gees" was  approved  on  March  3,  1865.  At  the  next  session,  Congress 
passed  a  bill  to  amend  this  act,  and  "  for  other  purposes,"  which  was 
vetoed  by  President  Johnson,  February  19,  1866.  Pending  this  bill  in 
the  House  of  Representatives,  Mr.  Garfield  made  this  speech.  As  he 
does  not  deal  directly  with  the  bill,  but  discusses  the  general  question  of 
Reconstruction,  an  analysis  of  the  pending  measure  is  not  necessary. 

Mr.  Garfield  began  with  remarking  that  the  pending  bill  was  one  of  a 
series  of  measures  which  it  was  the  duty  of  the  House  to  consider  and 
act  upon  during  the  current  session.  He  therefore  proposed  to  "  discuss 
in  connection  with  it  the  general  question  of  the  restoration  of  the  States 
lately  in  rebellion."  A  succinct  statement  of  facts  concerning  the  status 
of  the  Reconstruction  question  at  that  time  will  throw  much  light  upon 
the  speech,  as  well  as  upon  all  the  speeches  in  which  he  discusses  Re- 
construction topics. 

President  Johnson's  plan  of  reconstruction  rested  on  this  constitu- 
tional theory :  — 

1.  The  Rebel  States  did  not,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  secede.  "  All  in- 
tended acts  of  secession,"  he  said,  in  his  message  of  December  4,  1865, 
"were  from  the  beginning  null  and  void." 

2.  Individuals  had  committed  treason,  and  enough  of  them  should  be 
punished  to  "  make  treason  odious." 

3.  The  Rebel  State  governments  must  share  the  fate  of  the  Confed- 
erate government.  He  said :  "  The  State  institutions  are  prostrated, 
laid  out  on  the  ground,  and  they  must  be  taken  up  and  adapted  to  the 
progress  of  events." 

4.  To  "  take  up  "  their  institutions  and  "  adapt  them  to  the  progress 
of  events,"  State  conventions  must  be  held.    These  conventions  would 


96     RESTORATION  OF  THE  SOUTHERN  STATES. 

frame  constitutions,  provide  for  holding  elections,  and  do  all  other 
things  preliminary  to  State  reorganization. 

5.  When  these  constitutions  had  been  framed  and  ratified,  and  the 
State  governments  fully  set  up,  and  Representatives  and  Senators  chosen, 
it  would  be  the  duty  of  Congress  to  admit  the  Representatives  and  Sena- 
tors, thereby  recognizing  the  States  as  in  proper  relations  to  the  Union. 
Certain  terms  and  conditions  the  President  proppsed  to  make ;  as  the 
abolition  of  slavery,  the  ratification  of  the  Thirteenth  Amendment,  and 
the  repudiation  of  the  debts  contracted  in  carrying  on  the  Rebellion. 

President  Johnson  promptly  set  about  carrying  his  theory  into  execu- 
tion. May  29,  1865,  he  issued  his  amnesty  proclamation,  removing  all 
political  disabilities  on  the  score  of  participation  in  rebellion,  save  in 
certain  excepted  cases.  Beginning  the  same  day,  he  appointed  Pro- 
visional Governors  in  the  several  Rebel  States,  who  were  to  call  consti- 
tutional conventions,  and  in  all  ways  to  co-operate  with  the  people  of 
the  States  in  creating  new  State  institutions.  This  proviso,  in  substance 
found  in  all  the  proclamations  appointing  said  Governors,  defined  the 
exercise  of  the  elective  franchise  :  — 

"  Provided f  that  in  any  election  that  may  be  hereafter  held  for  choos- 
ing delegates  to  any  State  Convention,  as  aforesaid,  no  person  shall  be 
qualified  as  an  elector,  or  shall  be  eligible  as  a  member  of  such  Conven- 
tion, unless  he  shall  have  previously  taken  the  oath  of  amnesty,  as  set 
forth  in  the  President's  proclamation  of  May  29,  a.  d.  1865,  and  is  a 
voter  qualified  as  prescribed  by  the  Constitution  and  laws  of  the  State 
of  Nortli  Carolina  in  force  immediately  before  the  20th  day  of  May, 
1 86 1,  the  date  of  the  so-called  Ordinance  of  Secession ;  and  the  said 
Convention,  when  convened,  or  the  Legislature  that  may  be  thereafter 
assembled,  will  prescribe  the  qualification  of  electors,  and  the  eligibility 
of  persons  to  hold  office  under  the  Constitution  and  laws  of  the  State, 
a  power  the  people  of  the  several  States  composing  the  Federal  Union 
have  rightfully  exercised  from  the  origin  of  the  government  to  the  pres- 
ent time."  *  * 

The  Governors  appointed  by  these  proclamations  hastened  to  perform 
their  parts.  Conventions  were  held,  constitutions  framed  and  ratified, 
and  State  officers  elected.  December  18,  1865,  the  President  informed 
Congress,  in  a  special  message,  that  the  people  of  North  Carolina,  South 
Carolina,  Georgia,  Alabama,  Mississippi,  Louisiana,  Arkansas,  and  Ten- 
nessee had  reorganized  their  State  governments,  and  were  yielding  obe- 
dience to  the  laws  of  the  United  States.  He  now  began  to  press  for 
the  admission  to  Congress  of  their  so-called  Senators  and  Representa- 
tives, and,  February  19,  1866,  he  plainly  told  Congress  that  these  States 
were  "  entitled  to  enjoy  their  constitutional  rights  as  members  of  the 
Union." 

^  The  quotation  is  made  from  the  North  Carolina  proclamation  of  May  29^  1865. 


RESTORATION  OF  THE  SOUTHERN  STATES.      97 

While  differing  widely  among  themselves  both  as  to  constitutional 
theories  and  practical  measures,  the  Republican  leaders  differed  still 
more  widely  from  the  President.  At  the  beginning  of  his  administration, 
there  was  a  want  of  full  confidence  in  him  on  the  part  of  the  Repub- 
lican party,  and  the  breach  widened  as  he  progressively  unfolded  his 
scheme.  After  February  19,  1866,  it  was  irreparable.  First,  these 
leaders  held  that  the  President  arrogated  quite  too  much  authority  to 
the  Executive,  and  relegated  Congress  to  quite  too  humble  a  part. 
Second,  they  objected  to  his  plan  on  its  merits;  (i.)  as  failing  properly 
to  punish  treason ;  (2.)  as  failing  to  assure  the  peace  and  protection  of 
Southern  Unionists,  especially  the  freedmen.  Holding  these  views,  the 
Republican  majority  in  Congress  had,  by  a  concurrent  resolution  of  De- 
cember 13,  1865,  created  a  joint  Committee  on  Reconstruction,  direct- 
ing said  committee  to  "  inquire  into  the  conditions  of  the  States  of  what 
formed  the  so-called  Confederate  States  of  America,  and  report  whether 
they  or  any  of  them  are  entitled  to  be  represented  in  either  house  of 
Congress,  with  leave  to  report  by  bill  or  otherwise." 

Congress  promptly  replied  to  the  President's  veto  of  the  Freedmen*s 
Bureau  Bill,  and  his  demand  of  February  19,  1866,  that  the  recon- 
structed States  were  "entitled  to  enjoy  their  constitutional  rights  as 
members  of  the  Union,"  by  adopting  a  concurrent  resolution  to  the 
eflfect  that  "no  Senator  or  Representative  shall  be  admitted  to  either 
Iwanch  of  Congress  from  any  of  said  States  until  Congress  shall  have 
declared  such  State  entitled  to  such  representation."  (House,  February 
20;  Senate,  March  2.)  The  "series  of  measures"  to  which  Mr.  Gar- 
field refers  in  his  opening  are  the  pending  bill,  the  Fourteenth  Amend- 
ment, and  the  two  bills  reported  by  the  Reconstruction  Committee  in 
April  following,  designed  to  accomplish  the  work  of  reconstruction  ;  the 
logical  basis  of  all  which  measures  is  contained  in  the  majority  report 
of  the  Reconstruction  Committee,  made  June  18,  1866.  At  the  time 
Mr.  Garfield  made  the  following  speech,  these  measures  had  not  been 
folly  reported,  nor  had  the  final  breach  with  the  President  occurred. 
This  recital  of  facts  shows  the  attitude  of  the  President  and  of  Congress 
at  the  period  to  which  this  speech  belongs. 


MR.  SPEAKER,  — The  bill  now  before  the  House  is  one 
of  a  scries  of  measures  which  it  is  the  duty  of  this  House 
to  consider  and  act  upon  during  the  present  session :  and  I  shall, 
in  the  time  allotted  to  me,  take  a  wider  range  than  the  provis- 
ions of  the  bill  itself  would  warrant,  and  discuss,  in  connection 
with  it,  the  general  question  of  the  restoration  of  the  States  lately 
VOL.  I.  7 


98      RESTORATION  OF  THE  SOUTHERN  STATES. 

in  rebellion.  I  shall  try  to  examine  the  situation  of  national 
affairs  resulting  from  the  war;  to  determine,  if  possible,  what 
ought  to  be  done  to  bring  the  republic  back,  by  the  surest, 
safest,  and  shortest  path,  to  the  full  prosperity  of  liberty  and 
peace.  This  is  the  result  earnestly  desired  by  ever}'  patriotic 
citizen.  How  to  reach  it  is  the  great  problem  we  are  called 
upon  to  solve.  On  the  main  points  in  the  problem  I  believe 
there  is  far  less  difference  of  sentiment  in  this  House  than  is 
generally  supposed. 

Men  differ  far  more  in  theory  than  in  practice.  It  would  be 
easy  to  find  ten  men  who  perfectly  agree  in  recommending  a 
given  course  of  action.  It  would  be  difficult  to  find  ten  who 
would  give  the  same  reasons  for  that  recommendation.  If  the 
members  of  this  House  could  lay  aside  their  theories  and  ab- 
stract definitions,  and  deliberate  on  questions  of  practical  legis- 
lation, many  apparent  differences  would  at  once  disappear.  The 
words  and  phrases  that  we  use  exert  a  powerful  influence  on 
the  opinions  we  form  and  the  action  which  results. 

In  inquiring  into  the  legal  status  of  the  insurgent  States,  we 
are  met  at  the  threshold  by  three  distinct  theories,  each  of  which 
has  its  advocates  in  this  House :  — 

1.  That  these  States  are  now  and  have  never  ceased  to  be  in 
the  Union,  with  all  their  rights  unimpaired. 

2.  That  they  are  out  of  the  Union  in  fact  and  in  law;  that 
by  their  acts  of  secession  and  rebellion  they  are  reduced  to  the 
condition  of  Territories ;  and  that  it  rests  with  Congress  to  deter- 
mine whether  they  shall  now  or  hereafter  be  admitted  into  the 
Union. 

3.  The  theory  announced  by  the  gentleman  from  New  York,^ 
in  his  speech  of  three  days  ago,  that,  whatever  may  have  been 
the  effect  of  the  war  upon  them,  we  ought  to  accept  the  pres- 
ent status  of  the  Southern  States,  and  regard  them  as  having 
resumed,  under  the  President's  guidance  and  action,  their  func- 
tions of  self-government  in  the  Union.^ 

Mr.  Speaker,  I  am  unable  fully  to  agree  with  either  of  these 
propositions,  and  I  shall  endeavor  to  point  out  what  seems  to 
me  the  error  which  has  led  to  their  adoption.  Two  terms  made 
use  of  in  the  debate  on  this  subject  appear  to  have  caused 
much  of  the  diversity  of  opinion.  I  allude  to  the  word  **  State," 
and  the  phrase  **  in  the  Union/' 

1  Mr.  Raymond.  '  Congressional  Globe,  January  29,  1866,  p.  491. 


RESTORATION  OF  THE  SOUTHERN  STATES.      99 

The  word  "  State/'  as  it  has  been  used  by  gentlemen  in  this 
discussion,  has  two  meanings  as  perfectly  distinct  as  though 
different  words  had  been  used  to  express  them.  The  confusion 
arising  from  applying  the  same  word  to  two  different  and  dis- 
similar objects,  has  had  very  much  to  do  with  the  diverse  con- 
clusions which  gentlemen  have  reached.  They  have  given  us 
the  definition  of  a  *'  State  "  in  the  contemplation  of  public  or 
international  law,  and  have  at  once  applied  that  definition,  and 
the  conclusions  based  upon  it,  to  the  States  of  the  American 
Union,  and  the  effects  of  war  upon  them.  Let  us  examine  the 
two  meanings  of  the  word,  and  endeavor  to  keep  them  distinct 
in  their  application  to  the  questions  before  us. 

Phillimore,  the  great  English  publicist,  says :  — 

"  For  all  purposes  of  international  law,  a  state  (S^/xo?,  civitas^  Volk) 
may  be  defined  to  be  a  people  permanently  occupying  a  fixed  territory 
{certam  secUm)^  bound  together  by  common  laws,  habits,  and  customs 
into  one  body  politic,  exercising,  through  the  medium  of  an  organized 
government,  independent  sovereignty  and  control  over  all  persons  and 
things  within  its  boundaries,  capable  of  making  war  and  peace,  and  of 
entering  into  all  international  relations  with  the  other  communities  of  the 
globe."  ^ 

Substantially  the  same  definition  may  be  found  in  Grotius,^  in 
Burlamaqui,^  and  in  Vattel.*  The  primary  point  of  agreement 
in  all  these  authorities  is,  that  in  contemplation  of  international 
law.  a  state  is  absolutely  sovereign,  acknowledging  no  superior 
on  earth.  In  that  sense  the  United  States  is  a  state,  a  sovereign 
state,  just  as  Great  Britain,  France,  and  Russia  are  states. 

But  what  is  the  meaning  of  the  word  State  as  applied  to  Ohio 
or  Alabama?  Is  either  of  them  a  state  in  the  sense  of  inter- 
national law?  They  lack  all  the  leading  requisites  of  such  a 
state.  They  are  only  the  geographical  subdivisions  of  a  state ; 
and  though  endowed  by  the  people  of  the  United  States  with 
the  rights  of  local  self-government,  yet  in  all  their  external  rela- 
tions their  sovereignty  is  completely  destroyed,  being  merged 
in  the  supreme  Federal  government.^  Ohio  cannot  make  war ; 
cannot  conclude  peace ;  cannot  make  a  treaty  with  any  foreign 
government ;  cannot  even  make  a  compact  with  her  sister  State ; 

'  International  Law,  Part  II.  Chap.  I.  Sec.  65. 

^  Rights  of  War  and  Peace,  Book  I.  Chap.  I.  Sec.  14. 

'  Principles  of  Natural   and  Politic  Law,  Vol.  II.  Part  L  Chap.  IV.  Sec.  9. 

*  Law  of  Nations,  Book  I.  Chap.  I.  Sec.  i. 

*  See  Halleck*s  International  I^w,  Chap.  III.  Sec.  16. 


lOO    RESTORATION  OF  THE  SOUTHERN  STATES. 

cannot  regulate  commerce;  cannot  coin  money;  and  has  no 
flag.  These  indispensable  attributes  of  sovereignty  the  State  of 
Ohio  does  not  possess,  nor  does  any  other  State  of  the  Union. 
We  call  them  States  for  want  of  a  better  name.  We  call  them 
States  because  the  original  Thirteen  had  been  so  designated  be- 
fore the  Constitution  was  formed ;  but  that  Constitution  destroyed 
all  the  sovereignty  which  those  States  were  ever  supposed  to 
possess  in  reference  to  external  affairs. 

I  submit,  Mr.  Speaker,  that  the  five  great  publicists,  Grotius, 
Puffendorf,  Bynkershoek,  Burlamaqui,  and  Vattel,  who  have  been 
so  often  quoted  in  this  debate,  and  all  of  whom  wrote  more 
than  a  quarter  of  a  century,  and  some  nearly  two  centuries, 
before  our  Constitution  was  formed,  can  hardly  be  quoted  as 
good  authorities  in  regard  to  the  nature  and  legal  relationships 
of  the  component  States  of  the  American  Union. 

Even  my  colleague  from  the  Columbus  district,^  in  his  very 
able  discussion  of  this  question,  spoke  as  though  a  State  of  this 
Union  was  the  same  as  a  state  in  the  sense  of  international  law, 
with  certain  qualities  added.  I  think  he  must  admit  that  nearly 
all  the  leading  attributes  of  such  a  state  are  wanting  to  a  State 
of  our  Union. 

Several  gentlemen  in  this  debate  have  quoted  the  well-known 
doctrine  of  international  law,  **  that  war  annuls  all  existing  com- 
pacts and  treaties  between  belligerents  '* ;  and  they  have  con- 
cluded, therefore,  that  our  war  has  broken  the  Federal  bond 
and  dissolved  the  Union.  This  would  be  true  if  the  Rebel 
States  were  states  in  the  sense  of  international  law,  —  if  our 
government  were  not  a  sovereign  nation,  but  only  a  league 
between  sovereign  states. 

I  oppose  to  this  conclusion  the  unanswerable  proposition  that 
this  is  a  nation ;  that  the  Rebel  States  are  not  sovereign  states, 
and  therefore  their  failure  to  achieve  independence  was  a  fail- 
ure to  break  the  Federal  bond,  —  to  dissolve  the  Union.  The 
word  "state"  which  they  discuss  is  no  more  applicable  to  Ohio 
than  to  Hamilton  County.  The  States  and  counties  of  this 
Union  are  equally  unknown  to  international  law. 

There  is  another  expression  to  which  I  have  referred,  and 
which  is  used  in  an  equally  ambiguous  manner.  We  have 
discussed  the  question  here  whether  these  insurgent  States  are 
in  the  Union.     "  In  the  Union. "     What  do  we  mean  by  the 

*  Mr.  Shellabarger. 


RESTORATION  OF  THE  SOUTHERN  STATES.     lOi       # 

phrase?  In  one  sense,  every  inch  of  soil  that  we  own  is  "  in  the 
Union."  The  Territory  of  Utah  is  in  the  Union.  So  is  every 
Territory  of  the  West  in  the  Union ;  that  is,  under  its  authority, 
subject  to  its  right  of  eminent  domain.  On  the  other  hand, 
when  some  gentlemen  say  these  States  are  "  in  the  Union/' 
they  mean  to  include  all  their  relations,  all  their  rights  and 
privileges,  which  is  quite  another  thing.  From  this  ambiguity 
in  the  use  of  terms  have  arisen  most  of  the  differences  of  opin- 
ion on  this  subject. 

I  would  not  be  understood  as  saying  that  international  law 
has  nothing  to  do  with  the  question  before  us.  It  has  much  to 
do  with  it.  It  furnished  us  with  the  rules  of  civilized  nations  in 
the  conduct  of  war,  the  rights  of  belligerents,  the  treatment  of 
prisoners,  the  rules  of  surrender,  cartel,  and  parole.  Guided  by 
the  precepts  of  international  law,  we  are  enabled  to  understand 
the  rights  and  duties  of  neutral  powers,  and  the  legal  results  of 
successful  war  against  domestic  enemies  and  traitors.  But  when 
gentlemen  quote  the  doctrines  of  international  law  in  reference 
to  sovereign  nations,  and  apply  them  directly  to  the  political 
status  of  the  States  of  this  Union,  they  lead  us  into  error. 

In  view  of  the  peculiar  character  of  our  government,  I  ask: 
In  what  condition  has  the  war  left  the  Rebel  States?  Did  they 
accomplish  their  own  destruction  ?  Did  they  break  the  bonds 
which  bound  them  to  the  Union?  I  answer,  they  would  have 
done  both  these  things,  if  anything  short  of  successful  revolu- 
tion could  do  it.  It  was  not,  as  some  gentlemen  hold,  merely 
an  insurrection  of  individuals.  It  was  not,  as  most  civil  wars 
are,  a  war  among  the  atoms,  so  to  speak,  flaming  here  and 
there,  as  fire  breaks  out  in  a  hundred  places  in  a  city.  It  was  a 
war  of  organized  popular  masses,  or  as  the  Supreme  Court, 
borrowing  the  prophetic  words  of  De  Tocqueville,  calls  it,  *'  a 
territorial  civil  war,"  in  which  we  granted  them  belligerent  rights, 
and  claimed  for  ourselves  both  belligerent  and  sovereign  rights. 
We  could  pursue  them  with  war  as  enemies,  or  try  them  by 
criminal  law  as  citizens,  and  hang  them  as  condemned  traitors. 

I  cannot  agree  with  the  distinguished  gentleman  from  New 
York,*  when  he  holds  that  we  are  to  deal  with  the  Rebels  only 
as  individuals.  They  struck  at  the  Union  through  every  instru- 
mentality within  their  reach:  through  personal  service  in  the 
army  and  individual  contributions  of  money;  through  volun- 

*  Mr.  Ra3rmond. 


102    RESTORATION  OF  THE  SOUTHERN  STATES. 

tary  associations  to  raise  men  and  money ;  through  popular  mass 
meetings  to  inflame  the  passions  and  develop  all  the  powers  of 
their  people  ;  through  township,  county,  and  city  corporations ; 
through  State  conventions,  that  framed  new  constitutions  in 
order  the  more  perfectly  to  sever  the  bonds  which  held  them 
to  the  Union ;  and,  to  make  a  more  powerful  and  effectual 
instrument  with  which  to  establish  their  rebel  sovereignty, 
through  State  legislatures,  by  laws  levying  taxes  for  the  pur- 
chase of  arms,  ammunition,  and  all  the  materiel  of  war,  by  res- 
olutions denouncing  the  pains  and  penalties  of  treason  against 
all  citizens  who  refused  to  join  their  conspiracy;  and  finally, 
through  a  coofederation  of  eleven  States,  consolidated  into  a 
central  sovereign  government  defactOy  which  became  the  most 
absolute  military  despotism  in  modern  history,  —  a  despotism 
which  inundated  with  its  deluge  of  tyranny  all  State  guaranties, 
all  municipal  privileges,  and  assumed  absolute  control  of  all  per- 
sons and  property  within  the  limits  of  its  territory.  There  was 
not  a  conceivable  calamity  which  could  have  befallen  us  as  a 
nation  that  they  did  not  attempt,  with  all  their  power  and  in 
every  available  way,  to  bring  upon  us.  Individuals  fought  us 
as  individuals;  States  as  States  fought  us;  and  if  a  State  can 
commit  treason,  each  of  the  sinful  eleven  committed  it  again 
and  again.  The  Rebels  utterly  subverted  the  governments  of 
their  States,  they  broke  every  oath  by  which  they  had  bound 
themselves  to  the  Union,  they  let  go  their  hold  upon  the 
Union,  and  attempted  to  destroy  it. 

What  was  the  tie  that  bound  those  States  to  the  Union  ?  For 
example,  what  made  Alabama  a  State  of  the  Union?  Read  the 
history  of  that  transaction.  When  she  had  formed  a  constitu- 
tion for  herself  in  obedience  to  the  law  of  Congress,  when  Con- 
gress had  approved  that  constitution  as  republican  in  form,  the 
following  act  was  passed  by  the  Congress  of  the  United  States, 
and  was  approved  by  the  President,  December  14,  18 19:  ''Re- 
solved by  the  Senate  and  House  of  Represaitatives  of  the  United 
States  of  America  in  Congress  assembled.  That  the  State  of  Ala- 
bama shall  be  one,  and  is  hereby  declared  to  be  one,  of  the 
United  States  of  America,  and  admitted  into  the  Union  on  an 
equal  footing  with  the  original  Stales  in  all  respects  whatso- 
ever." Now,  Alabama  may  violate  a  law  of  Congress,  but  she 
cannot  annul  it.  She  may  break  it,  but  she  cannot  make  it 
void,  except  by  successful  revolution. 


RESTORATION  OF  THE  SOUTHERN  STATES.     103 

By  another  law  of  Congress,  approved  April  21,  1820,  it  was 
declared,  "That  all  the  laws  of  the  United  States  which  are 
not  locally  inapplicable  shall  be  extended  to  the  State  of  Ala- 
bama, and  shall  have  the  same  force  and  effect  within  the  same 
as  elsewhere  in  the  United  States."  By  this  law  Congress 
extended  our  judiciary  system  over  Alabama,  dividing  the 
State  into  judicial  districts ;  and  since  that  time,  year  by  year, 
Congress  has  been  covering  Alabama  with  Federal  legisla- 
tion as  with  a  network  of  steel.  Has  Alabama  broken  all 
these  bonds?  She  has  done  all  she  could  to  break  away  from 
the  Union,  but  she  has  not  been  able  to  destroy  or  render  in- 
valid one  law  of  the  republic.  Alabama  let  go  of  the  Union, 
but  the  Union  did  not  let  go  of  Alabama.  We  have  held  her 
through  four  years  of  war,  and  we  hold  her  still.  When  she 
tried  to  break  the  Federal  bonds,  we  called  out  millions  of  men 
in  order  that  not  one  jot  or  tittle  should  pass  from  these  laws, 
but  that  all  should  be  fulfilled. 

Let  the  stars  of  heaven  illustrate  our  constellation  of  States. 
When  God  launched  the  planets  upon  their  celestial  pathway, 
he  bound  them  all  by  the  resistless  power  of  attraction  to  the 
central  sun,  around  which  they  revolved  in  their  appointed 
orbits.  Each  may  be  swept  by  storms,  may  be  riven  by  light- 
nings, may  be  rocked  by  earthquakes,  may  be  devastated  by  all 
the  terrestrial  forces  and  overwhelmed  in  ruin,  but  far  away  in 
the  everlasting  depths  the  sovereign  sun  holds  the  turbulent 
planet  in  its  place.  This  earth  may  be  overwhelmed  until  the 
high  hills  are  covered  by  the  sea ;  it  may  tremble  with  earth- 
quakes miles  below  the  soil,  but  it  must  still  revolve  in  its  ap- 
pointed orbit.  So  Alabama  may  overwhelm  all  her  municipal 
institutions  in  ruin,  but  she  cannot  annul  the  omnipotent  de- 
crees of  the  sovereign  people  of  the  Union.  She  must  be  held 
forever  in  her  orbit  of  obedience  and  duty. 

Mr.  Stevens.  If  the  gentleman  from  Ohio  will  permit  me,  I  will  ask 
him  a  question.  Some  of  the  angels  undertook  to  dethrone  the  Al- 
mighty, but  they  could  not  do  it.  And  they  were  turned  out  of  heaven 
because  they  were  unable  to  break  its  laws.  Are  those  devilish  angels 
in  or  out  of  heaven  ? 

I  thank  the  gentleman  from  Pennsylvania  for  his  interruption. 
The  angels  that  kept  not  their  first  estate,  —  what  was  their 
fate?     It  was  the  Almighty  who   opened   the  shining  gates  of 


104    RESTORATION  OF  THE  SOUTHERN  STATES. 

heaven  and  hurled  them  down  to  eternal  ruin.  They  did  not 
go  without  his  permission  and  help.  And  if  these  States  are 
out  of  the  Union,  it  must  be  because  the  sovereign  people  of 
the  republic  hurled  them  out;  because  they  pleased  to  let 
them  go.  I  am  glad  the  gentleman  interrupted  me :  he  hap- 
pily illustrates  my  position. 

I  will  not  discuss  what  we  might  do  with  Alabama,  but  simply 
what  Alabama  herself  was  able  to  do,  and  what  she  was  not  able 
to  do,  toward  breaking  up  this  Union.  Two  years  ago,  when  I 
had  the  honor  for  the  first  time  to  address  this  House,  the  same 
question  that  is  now  before  us  was  under  discussion.  I  main- 
tained then,  as  I  hold  to-day,  that  the  Rebel  States  are  not,  in 
any  legitimate  sense  of  the  words,  out  of  the  Union.  I  declared 
then,  as  I  declare  now,  that  by  their  own  act  of  treason  and 
rebellion  they  had  forfeited  all  their  rights  in  the  Union,  but 
they  had  released  themselves  from  none  of  their  obligations. 
It  rests  with  the  people  of  the  republic  to  enforce  the  perform- 
ance of  these  obligations,  and,  so  soon  as  the  national  safety 
will  permit,  restore  them  to  their  rights. 

Now,  let  us  inquire  how  the  surrender  of  the  military  power 
of  the  Rebellion  affected  the  legal  condition  of  those  States. 
When  the  Rebellion  collapsed,  and  the  last  armed  man  of  the 
Confederacy  surrendered  to  our  forces,  I  affirm  that  there  was 
not  in  one  of  those  States  a  single  government  that  we  did  or 
could  recognize.  There  was  not  in  one  of  those  States  a  single 
man,  from  governor  down  to  constable,  whom  we  could  recog- 
nize as  authorized  to  exercise  any  official  function  whatever. 
They  had  formed  governments  alien  and  hostile  to  the  Union. 
Not  only  had  their  officers  taken  no  oaths  to  support  the  Con- 
stitution of  the  United  States,  but  they  had  heaped  oath  upon 
oath  to  destroy  it. 

I  go  further.  I  hold  that  there  were  in  those  States  no  con- 
stitutions of  any  binding  force  and  effect, —  none  that  we  could 
recognize.  A  constitution,  in  this  case,  can  mean  nothing  less 
than  a  constitution  of  government.  A  constitution  must  consti- 
tute something,  or  it  is  no  constitution.  When  we  speak  of  the 
constitution  of  Alabama,  we  mean  the  constitution  of  the  gov- 
ernment of  Alabama.  When  the  Rebels  surrendered,  there 
remained  no  constitution  in  Alabama,  because  there  remained 
no  government.  Those  States  reverted  into  our  hands  by  vic- 
torious war,  with  every  municipal  right   and  every  municipal 


RESTORATION  OF  THE  SOUTHERN  STATES.     105 

authority  utterly  and  completely  swept  away.     Whose  duty  was 
it  to  assume  the  control  of  them  under  such  circumstances? 

In  the  first  instance,  it  was  the  duty  of  the  President  of  the 
United  States.  Congress  was  not  then  in  session.  Military 
resistance  to  the  armies  of  the  Union  had  ceased,  and  the  laws 
of  war  covered  every  inch  of  the  conquered  territory.  I  ap- 
peal to  the  high  authority  of  international  law,  as  stated  by 
Halleck :  — 

"The  government  established  over  an  enemy's  territory  during  its 
military  occupation  may  exercise  all  the  powers  given  by  the  laws  of 
war  to  the  conqueror  over  the  conquered,  and  is  subject  to  all  the  re- 
strictions which  that  code  imposes.  It  is  of  little  consequence  whether 
such  government  be  called  a  military  or  a  civil  government ;  its  character 
is  the  same,  and  the  source  of  its  authority  the  same  :  in  either  case,  it 
is  a  government  imposed  by  the  laws  of  war,  and  so  far  as  it  concerns 
the  inhabitants  of  such  territory,  or  the  rest  of  the  world,  those  laws  alone 
determine  the  legality  or  illegality  of  its  acts.  But  the  conquering  state 
may,  of  its  own  will,  whether  expressed  in  its  constitution  or  in  its  laws, 
impose  restrictions  additional  to  those  established  by  the  usage  of  nations, 
conferring  upon  the  inhabitants  of  the  territory  so  occupied  privileges 
and  rights  to  which  they  are  not  strictly  entitied  by  the  laws  of  war ;  and, 
if  such  government  of  military  occupation  violate  these  additional  restric- 
tions so  imposed,  it  is  accountable  to  the  power  which  established  it,  but 
not  to  the  rest  of  the  world."  * 

The  same  author  applies  the  laws  of  war  to  the  United  States 
and  holds  that  the  President,  as  commander-in-chief,  may  estab- 
lish a  government  over  conquered  territory,  but  that  Congress 
may  at  any  time  put  an  end  to  such  a  government,  and  organize 
a  new  one.^ 

It  was  decided  by  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States, 
in  reference  to  the  Mexican  war,  that  on  the  conquest  of  a 
country  the  President  may  establish  a  provisional  government, 
which  may  ordain  laws  and  institute  a  judicial  system,  which 
will  continue  in  force  after  the  war,  and  until  modified  by  the 
direct  legislation  of  Congress  or  by  the  territorial  government 
established  by  its  authority.^ 

From  these  authorities  and  from  the  facts  in  the  case  it  is 
evident,  — 

I.  That,  by  conquest,  the  United  States  obtained  complete 
control  of  the  Rebel  territory. 

^  International  Law,  Chap.  XXXII.  Sec  i.        a  ibid.,  Chap.  XXXIII.  Sec.  16. 
•  Lftitensdorfer  v,  Webb,  20  Howard,  176. 


1 06    RESTORA  TION  OF  THE  SO  UTHERN  STA  TES. 

2.  That  every  vestige  of  municipal  authority  in  those  States 
was,  by  secession,  rebellion,  and  the  conquest  of  the  rebellion, 
utterly  destroyed. 

3.  That  the  state  of  war  did  not  terminate  with  the  actual 
cessation  of  hostilities,  but  that  under  the  laws  of  war  it  was  the 
duty  of  the  President,  as  commander-in-chief,  to  establish  gov- 
ernments over  the  conquered  people  of  the  insurgent  States, 
which  governments,  no  matter  what  may  be  their  form,  are 
really  military  governments,  deriving  their  sole  power  from  the 
President. 

4.  That  the  governments  thus  established  are  valid  while  the 
state  of  war  continues,  and  until  Congress  acts  in  the  case. 

5.  That  it  belongs  exclusively  to  the  legislative  authority  of 
the  government  to  determine  the  political  status  of  the  insur- 
gent States,  either  by  adopting  the  governments  the  President 
has  established,  or  by  permitting  the  people  to  form  others, 
subject  to  the  approval  of  Congress. 

The  President  might  have  sent  a  major-general,  or  any  other 
military  officer,  to  govern  each  one  of  the  Rebel  States.  But  he 
chose  to  consult  the  people,  and  allow  them  to  adopt  a  form  of 
government  resembling  civil  government,  so  that  they  might 
the  more  easily  come  back  to  their  places  in  due  time.  But 
it  was  none  the  less  a  military  government  for  that  reason. 
On  any  other  ground  the  whole  course  of  the  President  would 
have  been  an  unwarrantable  usurpation. 

Now,  holding  first  that  the  President  had  full  authority  in  the 
matter,  I  ask,  how  long  does  his  authority  last?  It  is  clearly 
settled  by  the  authorities  which  I  have  quoted  that  it  lasts  until 
Congress  speaks.  So  long  as  Congress  is  silent,  the  govern- 
ments established  by  the  President  will  remain. 

It  is  now  time,  Mr.  Speaker,  that  Congress  should  make  its 
declaration  of  policy  and  principle  in  reference  to  these  govern- 
ments. Let  us  not  quarrel  with  the  past  Let  us  not  endan- 
ger the  future  because  the  President's  policy  in  the  past  has  not 
been  all  we  could  desire.  In  one  important  particular  I  wish  it 
had  been  different.  When  he  appealed  to  the  people  of  the  South 
to  co-operate  with  him  in  establishing  his  military  governments, 
I  greatly  regret  that  he  did  not  appeal  to  all  the  loyal  people. 
I  regret  that  he  did  not  recognize  the  rights  and  consult  the 
wishes  of  those  loyal  millions  who  were  made  free  and  made 
citizens  also  by  the  events  of  the  war.    But  let  that  pass.    What 


RESTORATION  OF  THE  SOUTHERN  STATES.    107 

he  did  he  had  a  right  to  do;  what  remains  to  be  done  is  for 
Congress  and  the  President  in  their  legislative  capacity  to  deter- 
mine. Our  rights  in  this  direction  are  as  ample  as  the  rights  of 
conquest.  What  are  they?  I  read  from  Woolsey  the  latest 
utterance  of  public  law,  made  with  direct  reference  to  our  war: 
**  When  a  war  ends  to  the  disadvantage  of  the  insurgents,  muni- 
cipal law  may  clinch  the  nail  which  war  has  driven,  may  hang, 
after  legal  process,  instead  of  shooting,  and  confiscate  the  whole 
instead  of  plundering  a  part.  But  a  wise  and  civilized  nation 
will  exercise  only  so  much  of  this  legal  vengeance  as  the  inter- 
ests of  lasting  order  imperiously  demand."  ^ 

These  capacious  powers  are  in  our  hands.  How  shall  we 
use  them?  I  agree  with  my  friend  from  Connecticut,*  that  we 
need  not  apply  the  strictissimum  jus  to  these  conquered  people. 
We  should  do  nothing  inconsistent  with  the  spirit  and  genius 
of  our  institutions.  We  should  do  nothing  for  revenge,  but 
everything  for  security;  nothing  for  the  past,  everything  for  the 
present  and  the  future.  Indemnity  for  the  past  we  can  never 
obtain.  The  three  hundred  thousand  graves  in  which  sleep  our 
fathers  and  brothers,  murdered  by  rebellion,  will  keep  their 
sacred  trust  till  the  angel  of  the  resurrection  bids  the  dead  come 
forth.  The  tears,  the  sorrow,  the  unutterable  anguish  of  broken 
hearts,  can  never  be  atoned  for.  We  turn  from  that  sad  but 
glorious  past,  and  demand  such  securities  for  the  future  as  can 
never  be  destroyed. 

And  first,  we  must  recognize  in  all  our  action  the  stupendous 
facts  of  the  war.     In  the  very  crisis  of  our  fate  God  brought 
us  face  to  face  with  the  alarming  truth  that  we  must  lose  our 
own  freedom  or  grant  it  to  the  slave.     In  the  extremity  of  our 
distress  we  called  upon  the  black  man  to  help  us  save  the  re-' 
public,  and  amid  the  very  thunder  of  battle  we  made  a  covenant 
with  him  sealed  both  with  his  blood  and  ours,  and  witnessed  by 
Jehovah,  that  when  the  nation  was  redeemed  he  should  be  free 
and  share  with  us  the  glories  and  blessings  of  freedom.     In  the 
solemn  words  of  the  great  proclamation  of  emancipation,  we  not 
only  declared  the  slaves  forever  free,  but  we  pledged  the  faith 
of  the  nation  "  to  maintain  their  freedom," —  mark  the  words, 
^^  to  maintain  their  freedom''     The  Omniscient  Witness  will  ap- 
pear in  judgment  against  us  if  we  do  not  fulfil  that  covenant. 

*  Introduction  to  the  Study  of  International  Law,  (New  York,  1867,)  p.  231. 

*  Mr.  Deming. 


I08    RESTORATION  OF  THE  SOUTHERN  STATES. 

Have  we  done  it?  Have  we  given  freedom  to  the  black  man? 
What  is  freedom?  Is  it  a  mere  negation,  —  the  bare  privilege 
of  not  being  chained,  bought  and  sold,  branded  and  scourged? 
If  this  be  all,  then  freedom  is  a  bitter  mockery,  a  cruel  delusion, 
and  it  may  well  be  questioned  whether  slavery  were  not  better. 

But  liberty  is  no  negation.  It  is  a  substantive,  tangible  reality. 
It  is  the  realization  of  those  imperishable  truths  of  the  Declara- 
tion, "  that  all  men  are  created  equal,"  that  the  sanction  of  all 
just  government  is  "  the  consent  of  the  governed."  Can  these 
truths  be  realized  until  each  man  has  a  right  to  be  heard  on  all 
matters  relating  to  himself? 

Mr.  Speaker,  we  did  more  than  merely  break  off  the  chains 
of  the  slaves.  The  abolition  of  slavery  added  four  million  citi- 
zens to  the  republic.  By  the  decision  of  the  Supreme  Court, 
by  the  decision  of  the  Attorney-General,  by  the  decision  of  all 
the  departments  of  our  government,  those  men  made  free  are, 
by  the  act  of  freedom,  made  citizens.  As  another  has  said, 
they  must  be  "  four  million  disfranchised,  disarmed,  untaught, 
landless,  thriftless,  non-producing,  non-consuming,  degraded 
men,  or  four  million  landholding,  industrious,  arms-bearing, 
and  voting  population.     Choose  between  the  two !  " 

If  they  are  to  be  disfranchised,  if  they  are  to  have  no  voice  in 
determining  the  conditions  under  which  they  are  to  live  and 
labor,  what  hope  have  they  for  the  future?  It  will  rest  with  their 
late  masters,  whose  treason  they  aided  to  thwart,  to  determine 
whether  negroes  shall  be  permitted  to  hold  property,  to  enjoy 
the  benefits  of  education,  to  enforce  contracts,  to  have  access  to 
the  courts  of  justice,  —  in  short,  to  enjoy  any  of  those  rights 
which  give  vitality  and  value  to  freedom.  In  that  event,  who 
can  fail  to  foresee  the  ruin  and  misery  that  await  this  race, 
to  whom  the  vision  of  freedom  has  been  presented  only  to 
be  withdrawn,  leaving  them  without  even  the  aid  which  the 
master's  selfish  commercial  interest  in  their  life  and  service 
formerly  afforded  them?  Will  these  negroes,  remembering  the 
battle-fields  on  which  nearly  two  hundred  thousand  of  their 
number  have  so  bravely  fought,  and  many  thousands  have  he- 
roically died,  submit  to  oppression  as  tamely  and  peaceably  as 
in  the  days  of  slavery?  Under  such  conditions  there  could 
be  no  peace,  no  security,  no  prosperity.  The  spirit  of  slavery 
is  still  among  us ;  it  must  be  utterly  destroyed  before  we  shall 
be  safe. 


RESTORATION  OF  THE  SOUTHERN  STATES.    109 

Gibbon  has  recorded  an  incident  which  may  serve  to  illustrate 
the  influence  of  slavery  in  this  country.  The  Christians  of 
Alexandria,  under  the  lead  of  Theophilus,  their  bishop,  resolved, 
as  a  means  of  overthrowing  Egyptian  idolatry,  to  demolish  the 
temple  of  Serapis  and  erect  on  its  ruins  a  church  in  honor  of 
the  Christian  martyrs. 

"  The  colossal  statue  of  Serapis  was  involved  in  the  ruin  of  his  tem- 
ple and  religion It  was  confidendy  affirmed  that,  if  any  impious 

hand  should  dare  to  violate  the  majesty  of  the  god,  the  heavens  and 
the  earth  would  instantly  return  to  their  original  chaos.  An  intrepid 
soldier,  animated  by  zeal,  and  armed  with  a  weighty  battle-axe,  as- 
cended the  ladder,  and  even  the  Christian  multitude  expected  with 
some  anxiety  the  event  of  the  combat.  He  aimed  a  vigorous  stroke 
against  the  cheek  of  Serapis :  the  cheek  fell  to  the  ground ;  the  thunder 
was  still  silent,  and  both  the  heavens  and  the  earth  continued  to  pre- 
serve their  accustomed  order  and  tranquillity.  The  victorious  soldier 
repeated  his  blows :  the  huge  idol  was  overthrown,  and  broken  in 
pieces ;  and  the  limbs  of  Serapis  were  ignominiously  dragged  through 
the  streets  of  Alexandria.  His  mangled  carcass  was  burnt  in  the  am- 
phitheatre amidst  the  shouts  of  the  populace ;  and  many  persons  attrib- 
uted their  conversion  to  this  discovery  of  the  impotence  of  their  tutelar 
deity."  ^ 

So  sat  slavery  in  this  republic.     The  temple  of  the  Rebellion 
was  its  sanctuary,  and  seven   million  Rebels  were  its  devoted 
worshippers.      Our  loyal  millions  resolved  to  overthrow  both 
the  temple  and  its  idol.      On  the  first  day  of  January,   1863, 
Abraham  Lincoln  struck  the  grim  god  on  the  cheek,  and  the 
faithless  and  unbelieving  among  us   expected  to  see  the  fabric 
of  our  institutions  dissolve  into  chaos  because  their  idol  had 
been  smitten.     He  struck  it  again;  Congress  and  the  States  re- 
peated the  blow,  and   its  unsightly  carcass  lies  rotting  in  our 
streets.      The  sun  shines  in  the  heavens  brighter  than  before. 
Let  us  remove  the  carcass  and  leave  not  a  vestige  of  the  mon- 
ster.   We  shall  never  have  done  that,  until  wc  declare  that  all 
men  shall  be  consulted  in  regard  to  the  disposition  of  their  lives, 
liberty,  and  property. 

Is  this  Congress  brave  enough  and  virtuous  enough  to  ap- 
ply that  principle  to  every  citizen,  whatever  be  the  color  of  his 
skin?  The  spirit  of  our  government  demands  that  there  shall 
be  no  rigid,  horizontal  strata  running  across  our  political  so- 

1  Decline  and  Fall  of  the  Roman  Empire,  Chap.  XX VIII. 


1 10    RESTORATION  OF  THE  SOUTHERN  STATES, 

ciety,  through  which  some  classes  of  citizens  may  never  pass 
up  to  the  surface ;  but  it  shall  be  rather  like  the  ocean,  where 
every  drop  can  seek  the  surface  and  glisten  in  the  sun.  Until 
we  are  true  enough  and  brave  enough  to  declare  that  in  this 
country  the  humblest,  the  lowest,  the  meanest  of  our  citizens 
shall  not  be  prevented  from  passing  to  the  highest  place  he  is 
worthy  to  attain,  we  shall  never  realize  freedom  in  all  its  glorious 
meanings.  I  do  not  expect  we  can  realize  this  result  imme- 
diately ;  it  may  be  impossible  to  realize  it  very  soon ;  but  let 
us  keep  our  eyes  fixed  in  that  direction,  and  march  toward  that 
goal. 

There  is  a  second  great  fact  which  we  must  recognize,  namely, 
that  the  seven  million  white  men  lately  in  rebellion  now  stand 
waiting  to  have  their  case  adjudged,  —  to  have  it  determined 
what  their  status  shall  be  in  this  government.  Shall  they  be 
held  under  military  power?  shall  they  be  governed  by  depu- 
ties appointed  by  the  Executive?  or  shall  they  again  resume 
the  functions  of  self-government  in  the  Union?  —  are  some  of 
the  questions  growing  out  of  this  second  fact. 

I  will  proceed  to  state,  in  a  few  words,  what  seems  to  me 
necessary  for  the  practical  settlement  of  this  question.  In  view 
of  the  events  of  the  war,  and  the  peculiar  and  novel  situation 
of  the  parties  and  interests  concerned ;  in  view  of  the  powers 
conferred  upon  us  by  the  Constitution  and  the  laws  of  war; 
and  in  view  of  the  solemn  obligations  which  rest  upon  us  to 
maintain  the  freedom,  security,  and  peace  of  all  the  citizens  of 
the  republic, —  I  inquire,  What  practical  measures  can  we  adopt 
best  calculated  to  reach  the  desired  result?  It  appears  to  me, 
sir,  that  we  should  take  action  in  regard  to  persons  and  in  re- 
gard to  States. 

In  reference  to  persons,  we  must  see  to  it  that,  hereafter,,  per- 
sonal liberty  and  personal  rights  are  placed  in  the  keeping  of 
the  nation ;  that  the  right  to  life,  liberty,  and  property  shall  be 
guaranteed  to  the  citizen  in  reality,  as  it  now  is  in  the  words 
of  the  Constitution,  and  no  longer  be  left  to  the  caprice  of 
mobs  or  the  contingencies  of  local  legislation.  If  our  Consti- 
tution does  not  now  afford  all  the  powers  necessary  to  that  end, 
we  must  ask  the  people  to  add  them.  We  must  give  full  force 
and  effect  to  the  provision  that  '*  no  person  shall  be  deprived 
of  life,  liberty,  or  property  without  due  process  of  law."  We 
must  make  it  as  true  in  fact  as  it  is  in  law,  that  "  The  citizens 


RESTORATION  OF  THE  SOUTHERN  STATES.    1 1 1 

of  each  State  shall  be  entitled  to  all  privileges  and  immunities 
of  citizens  in  the  several  States."  We  must  make  American 
citizenship  the  shield  that  protects  every  citizen,  on  every  foot 
of  our  soil.  The  bill  now  before  the  House  is  one  of  the  means 
for  reaching  this  desirable  result. 

What  shall  be  done  with  the  States  lately  in  rebellion?  How 
shall  we  discharge  our  duty  toward  them?  I  shall  hail  with  joy 
the  day  when  they  shall  all  be  again  in  their  places,  loyally  obe- 
dient and  fully  represented  by  loyal  men.  Are  they  now  enti- 
tled to  admission?  Are  they  worthy  of  so  great  confidence? 
To  my  mind,  Mr.  Speaker,  the  prima  facie  evidence  is  against 
them ;  the  burden  of  proof  rests  on  each  of  them  to  show 
whether  it  is  fit  again  to  enter  the  Federal  circle  in  full  com- 
munion of  privileges.  We  are  sitting  as  a  general  court 
of  the  nation.  They  are  to  appear  at  the  bar  of  the  repub- 
lic, and  show  cause  why  they  should  be  brought  in.  I  say 
the  burden  of  proof  is  upon  their  shoulders.  When  we  knew 
them  last,  they  were  hurling  the  lightnings  of  war  against  us ; 
they  were  starving  our  soldiers  whom  they  held  as  prisoners 
of  war  in  their  dungeons;  they  were  burning  our  towns;  they 
were  hating  the  Union  above  all  things,  and  were  bound  by 
bloody  oaths  to  destroy  it.  Thus  stood  the  case  when  Con- 
gress adjourned  ten  months  ago.  They  must  give  us  proof, 
strong  as  holy  writ,  that  they  have  washed  their  hands  and 
are  worthy  again  to  be  trusted.  No  rumors  of  change;  no 
Delphic  oracle,  telling  beautiful  tales  of  peace  and  restoration ; 
no  gentle  declarations  like  those  that  we  hear  from  the  other 
side  of  this  chamber,  that  the  people  of  the  South  "  have  ac- 
cepted the  results  of  the  war,"  —  will  suffice.  I  know  they  have 
accepted  the  results  of  war,  —  as  Buckner  accepted  them  at 
Fort  Donelson,  as  Pemberton  accepted  them  at  Vicksburg,  as 
Lee  accepted  them  last  April  in  Virginia. 

I  hasten  to  say,  Mr.  Speaker,  that  I  do  not  expect  seven  mil- 
lion men  to  change  their  hearts  —  to  love  what  they  hated 
and  hate  what  they  loved  — on  the  issue  of  a  battle.  Nor  are 
we  set  up  as  a  judge  over  their  beliefs,  their  loves,  or  their 
hatreds.  Our  duty  is  to  demand  that  before  we  admit  them 
they  shall  give  us  sufficient  assurance  that,  whatever  they  may 
think,  believe,  or  wish,  their  actions  in  the  future  shall  be  such 
as  loyal  men  can  approve.  What  have  they  done  to  give  us 
that  assurance? 


112    RESTORATION  OF  THE  SOUTHERN  STATES. 

I  hold  in  my  hand,  Mr.  Speaker,  a  proclamation  issued  a  few 
days  since  by  Benjamin  G.  Humphreys,  late  a  general  in  the 
Rebel  army,  now  the  so-called  Governor  of  Mississippi,  which 
will  illustrate  the  spirit  in  which  it  is  desired  to  administer  the 
affairs  of  reorganized  Mississippi.     He  says :  — 

"  Whereas  section  six  of  an  act  of  the  Legislature  of  the  State  of  Mis- 
sissippi, entitled,  *  An  Act  authorizing  the  issuance  of  treasury  notes  as 
advance  upon  cotton,  approved  December  19,  1861,'  provides  that 
whenever  the  present  blockade  of  the  ports  of  the  Confederate  States 
shall  be  removed,"  etc.,  etc 

**  Now,  therefore,  I,  Benjamin  G.  Humphreys,  Governor  of  the  State 
of  Mississippi,  by  virtue  of  the  authority  vested  in  me  by  the  constitution 
and  laws  of  said  State,  do  hereby  proclaim  that  the  blockade  of  the  ports 
of  the  Confederate  States  has  been  removed ;  and  I  do  require  all  per- 
sons to  whom  advances  have  been  made  to  deliver  the  number  of  bales 
of  cotton  upon  which  they  have  received  an  advance,  in  accordance 
with  their  respective  receipts  on  file  in  the  auditor's  office,  within  ninety 
days  from  the  date  of  this  proclamation." 

Now,  what  does  that  mean  ?  It  means  that  he  recognizes  as 
valid  the  acts  of  the  legislature  of  the  late  Rebel  State  of  Mis- 
sissippi and  of  the  Confederate  States,  and  bases  his  proclama- 
tion thereon.  This  proclamation  reached  us  only  a  few  days 
ago.  And  yet  there  are  members  of  this  House  who  ask  us  to 
admit  the  Representatives  of  Mississippi  at  once! 

Now,  Mr.  Speaker,  in  the  neighboring  State  of  Virginia  a 
law  has  lately  been  passed  which  declares  certain  negroes 
vagrants,  and  provides  that  as  a  penalty  they  may  be  sold 
into  slavery.  Major-General  Terry,  on  the  24th  of  January, 
issued  his  military  order  nullifying  that  law.  Is  that  a  civil 
government  in  which  the  military  authorities  abrogate  the  laws? 
Are  the  men  who  make  such  laws  worthy  of  our  confidence? 
I  say  again,  the  case  is  against  them,  the  burden  of  proof  is  on 
their  shoulders.  They  must  purge  themselves  before  I  can 
consent  to  let  them  in. 

How  stands  the  case  in  Tennessee,  the  least  treasonable  of 
all?  In  a  letter  addressed  to  yourself,  Mr.  Speaker,  under  date 
of  January  15,  1866,  after  pleading  for  the  admission  of  the  del- 
egation from  that  State,  Governor  Brownlow  says :  — 

"  Not  a  man  south  of  Tennessee  should  be  admitted  until  those  States 
manifest  less  of  the  spirit  of  rebellion,  and  elect  a  more  loyal  set  of  men, 
and  men  who  can  take  the  Congressional  test  oath,  which  but  few  of 
those  elected  can  do. 


RESTORATION  OF  THE  SOUTHERN  STATES.     113 

"  If  the  removal  of  the  Federal  troops  from  Tennessee  must  necessa- 
rily follow  upon  the  admission  of  our  Congressional  delegation  to  their 
seats,  why,  then,  and  in  that  case,  the  loyal  men  of  Tennessee  beg  to  be 
without  Representatives  in  Congress.  But  our  members  can  be  admit- 
ted, and  a  military  force  retained  sufficient  to  govern  and  control  the 
rebellious.  I  tell  you,  and  through  you  all  whom  it  may  concern,  that 
without  a  law  to  disfranchise  Rebels  and  a  force  to  carry  out  the  provis- 
ions of  that  law,  this  State  will  pass  into  the  hands  of  the  Rebels,  and  a 
terrible  state  of  affairs*  is  bound  to  follow.  Union  men  will  be  driven 
from  the  State,  forced  to  sacrifice  what  they  have,  and  seek  homes  else- 
where. And  yet  Tennessee  is  in  a  much  better  condition  than  any  of 
the  other  revolted  States,  and  affords  a  stronger  loyal  population. 

"  Those  who  suppose  the  South  is  '  reconstructed,'  and  that  her  people 
cheerfully  accept  the  results  of  the  war,  are  fearfully  deceived.  The  whole 
South  is  full  of  the  spirit  of  rebellion,  and  the  people  are  growing  more 
bitter  and  insolent  every  day.  Rebel  newspapers  are  springing  up  all 
over  the  South,  and  speaking  out  in  terms  of  bitterness  and  reproach 
against  the  government  of  the  United  States.  These  papers  lead  the 
people,  and  at  the  same  time  reflect  their  sentiments  and  feelings.  Of 
the  twenty-one  papers  in  Tennessee,  fourteen  are  decidedly  Rebel,  out- 
spoken and  undisguised,  some  of  them  pretending  to  acquiesce  in  the 
existing  state  of  affairs.  In  all  the  vacancies  occurring  in  our  legis- 
lature, even  with  our  franchise  law  in  force,  Rebels  are  invariably 
returned,  and  in  some  instances  Rebel  officers  limping  from  wounds 
received  in  battle  fighting  against  the  United  States  forces ;  and  yet 
I  tell  you  that  Tennessee  is  in  a  better  condition  than  any  other  re- 
volted State. 

"  Others  will  give  you  a  more  favorable  account.  I  cannot  in  justice 
to  myself  and  the  truth.  I  think  I  know  the  Southern  people.  I  have 
lived  fifty-eight  years  in  the  South  of  choice,  and  two  at  the  North  of 
necessity." 

In  view  of  these  facts,  we  await  further  proofs. 

But,  sir,  there  is  a  duty  laid  upon  us  by  the  Constitution. 
That  duty  is  declared  in  these  words :  "  The  United  States  shall 
guarantee  to  every  State  in  this  Union  a  republican  form  of 
government."  What  does  that  mean?  Read  the  twenty-first 
and  forty-third  numbers  of  the  Federalist,  and  you  will  under- 
stand what  the  fathers  of  the  Constitution  meant  when  they  put 
that  clause  into  our  organic  law.  With  wonderful  foresight, 
amounting  almost  to  prophecy,  they  appear  to  have  foreseen 
just  such  a  contingency  as  the  one  that  has  arisen.  Madi- 
son said  that  an  insurrection  might  arise  too  powerful  to  be 
suppressed  by  the  local  authorities,  and   Congress  must  have 

VOL.  1.  8 


\ 


114    RESTORATION  OF  THE  SOUTHERN  STATES. 

authority  to  put  it  down,  and  to  see  that  no  usurping  govern- 
ment shall  be  erected  on  the  ruins  of  a  State. 

What  is  a  republican  form  of  government?  When  the  Union 
was  formed  the  free  colored  people  were  not  a  tenth  of  the  pop- 
ulation of  any  State.  Now  all  black  men  are  free  citizens ;  and 
"  we  are  asked,"  as  the  lamented  Henry  Winter  Davis  has  so 
clearly  stated  it,  "  to  recognize  as  republican  such  despot- 
isms as  these:  in  North  Carolina  631,000  citizens  will  ostra- 
cize 331,000  citizens  ;  in  Virginia,  719,000  citizens  will  ostracize 
533,000  citizens;  in  Alabama,  596,000  citizens  will  ostracize 
437,000  citizens;  in  Louisiana,  357,000  citizens  will  ostracize 
350,000  citizens;  in  Mississippi,  353,000  citizens  will  ostracize 
436,000  citizens ;  in  South  Carolina  291,000  citizens  will  ostra- 
cize 411,000  citizens." 

We  are  asked  to  guarantee  all  these  as  republican  govern- 
ments !  Gentlemen,  upon  the  other  side  of  the  House  ask  us  to 
let  such  shameless  despotisms  as  these  be  represented  here  as 
republican  States.  I  venture  to  assert  that  a  more  monstrous 
proposition  was  never  before  made  to  an  American  Congress. 

I  am  therefore  in  favor  of  the  amendment  to  the  Constitution 
that  passed  the  House  yesterday,  to  reform  the  basis  of  repre- 
sentation.^ I  could  have  wished  that  it  had  been  more  thorough 
and  searching  in  its  terms;  I  took  it  as  the  best  we  could  get; 
but  I  say  here,  before  this  House,  that  I  will  never,  so  long  as  I 
have  any  voice  in  political  affairs,  rest  satisfied  until  the  way  is 
opened  by  which  these  colored  citizens,  so  soon  as  they  are 
worthy,  shall  be  lifted  to  the  full  rights  of  citizenship.  I  will 
not  be  factious  in  my  action  here.  If  I  cannot  to-day  get  all 
I  desire,  I  will  try  again  to-morrow,  securing  all  that  can  be 
obtained  to-day.  But  so  long  as  I  have  any  voice  or  vote  here, 
it  shall  aid  in  giving  the  suffrage  to  every  citizen  qualified,  by 
intelligence,  to  exercise  it. 

Mr.  Speaker,  I  know  of  nothing  more  dangerous  to  a  republic 
than  to  put  into  its  very  midst  four  million  people  stripped  of 
the  rights  of  citizenship,  robbed  of  the  right  of  representa- 
tion, but  bound  to  pay  taxes  to  the  government.  If  they  can 
endure  it,  we  cannot.  The  murderer  is  to  be  pitied  more  than 
the  murdered  man;  the  robber  more  than  the  robbed;  and 
we  who  defraud  four  million  citizens  of  their  rights  are  injuring 

1  Namely,  an  amendment  adopted  by  the  House,  January  31,  1866,  but  rejected 
by  the  Senate. 


RESTORA  TtON  OF  THE  SO  UTHERN  STA  TES.    1 1 S 

ourselves  vastly  more  than  we  are  injuring  those  whom  we  de- 
fraud. I  say  that  the  inequality  of  rights  before  the  law,  which 
is  now  a  part  of  our  system,  is  more  dangerous  to  us  than  to 
the  black  man  whom  it  disfranchises.  It  is  like  a  foreign  sub- 
stance in  the  body,  a  thorn  in  the  flesh;  it  will  wound  and 
disease  the  body  politic. 

I  remember  that  this  question  of  suffrage  caused  one  of  the 
greatest  civil  wars  in  the  history  of  Rome.  Ninety  years  before 
Christ,  when  Rome  was  near  the  climax  of  her  glory,  just  before 
the  dawn  of  the  Augustan  age,  twelve  peoples  of  Italy,  to  whom 
the  franchise  was  denied,  rose  in  rebellion  against  Rome ;  and 
after  three  years  and  ten  months  of  bloody  war  they  compelled 
Rome  to  make  her  first  capitulation  for  three  hundred  years. 
For  three  hundred  years  the  Roman  eagle  had  been  carried 
triumphantly  over  every  battle-field ;  but  when  iron  Rome,  with 
all  her  pride  and  glory,  met  men  who  were  fighting  for  the 
right  of  suffrage,  she  was  compelled  to  succumb,  and  give  the 
ballot  to  the  twelve  peoples  to  save  herself  from  dissolution. 
Let  us  learn  wisdom  from  that  lesson,  and  extend  the  suffrage 
to  people  who  may  one  day  bring  us  more  disaster  than  foreign 
or  domestic  war  has  yet  done. 

I  must  refer  for  a  moment  to  the  proposition  of  my  friend 
from  Connecticut,^  who  asks  us  to  imbed  in  the  imperishable 
bulwarks  of  the  Constitution  an  amendment  that  will  forbid 
secession  in  the  future.  I  want  no  such  change  of  the  Consti- 
tution. The  Rebels  never  had,  by  the  Constitution,  the  right 
to  secede.  If  we  have  not  settled  that  question  by  war,  it  can 
never  be  settled  by  a  court.  The  court  of  war  is  higher  than 
any  other  tribunal.  As  the  Governor  of  Ohio  has  so  well  said, 
"  These  things  have  been  decided  in  the  dread  court  of  last  re- 
sort for  peoples  and  nations.  By  as  much  as  the  shock  of  armed 
hosts  is  more  grand  than  the  intellectual  tilt  of  lawyers,  as  the 
God  of  battles  is  a  more  awful  judge  than  any  earthly  court,  by 
so  much  does  the  dignity  of  this  contest  and  the  finality  of  this 
decision  exceed  that  of  any  human  tribunal."  I  care  not  what 
provision  might  be  in  the  Constitution ;  if  any  States  of  this 
Union  desire  to  rebel  and  break  up  the  Union,  and  are  able  to 
do  it,  they  will  do  it  in  spite  of  the  Constitution.  All  I  want, 
therefore,  is  so  to  amend  our  Constitution  and  administer  our 
laws  as  to  secure  liberty  and  loyalty  among  the  citizens  of  the 
Rebel  States. 

*  Mr.  Deming. 


Ii6    RESTORATION  OF  THE  SOUTHERN  STATES. 

I  am  not  among  those  who  believe  that  all  men  in  the  South 
are  enemies  in  the  eye  of  the  law.  Their  property  was  "  enemy's 
property "  when  it  was  transported  and  used  contrary  to  the 
laws  of  the  government ;  but  all  are  not  therefore  enemies  of  the 
government.  Judge  Sprague,  in  the  Amy  Warwick  case,^  dis- 
tinctly declared  that  they  were  only  enemies  in  a  technical  sense ; 
and  in  reference  to  property,  Justice  Nelson,  in  1862,  declared 
distinctly  that  men  who  resided  within  the  limits  of  the  rebel- 
lious States  were  not  therefore  to  be  considered  as  enemies. 
He  distinctly  declared  that  the  question  of  their  property  be- 
ing enemy's  property  depended  upon  the  use  made  of  it.  If 
the  attempt  was  made  to  take  and  transport  the  property  in 
opposition  to  law,  then  it  fell  under  the  technical  category  of 
enemy's  property,  and  not  otherwise.  I  take  it  for  granted  that 
the  farm  of  Andrew  Johnson,  in  Tennessee,  was  never  enemy's 
property.  If  he  had  undertaken  to  violate  the  revenue  laws  in 
the  use  of  his  property,  it  would  have  become  such. 

I  remember  that  the  long  range  of  mountains  stretching  from 
Western  Virginia,  through  Tennessee  and  Georgia,  to  the  sand- 
hills of  Mississippi,  stood  like  a  promontory  in  the  fiery  ruin 
with  which  the  Rebellion  had  involved  the  republic.  I  re- 
member that  East  Tennessee,  with  its  loyal  thousands,  stood 
like  a  rock  in  the  sea  of  treason.  I  remember  that  thirty-five 
thousand  brave  men  from  Tennessee  stood  beside  us  to  assist 
in  putting  down  the  Rebellion.  They  are  not  enemies  of  the 
country,  and  never  were ;  and  it  is  cruelly  wicked,  by  any  fic- 
tion of  the  law,  to  call  them  so..  To  those  patriotic  men  of 
Tennessee  let  me  say,  I  want  you  to  show  that  there  is  behind 
you  a  loyal  State  government,  based  on  the  will  of  loyal  peo- 
ple, and  that  districts  of  loyal  constituents  have  sent  you  here. 
When  you  do  that,  you  shall  have  my  vote  in  favor  of  your 
admission.     But  the  burden  of  proof  is  on  your  shoulders. 

Mr.  Speaker,  let  us  learn  a  lesson  from  the  dealings  of  God 
with  the  Jewish  nation.  When  his  chosen  people,  led  by  the 
pillar  of  cloud  and  fire,  had  crossed  the  Red  Sea  and  traversed 
the  gloomy  wilderness  with  its  thundering  Sipai,  its  bloody  bat- 
tles, disastrous  defeats,  and  glorious  victories,  —  when  near  the 
end  of  their  perilous  pilgrimage  they  listened  to  the  last  words 
of  blessing  and  warning  from  their  great  leader,  before  he  was 
buried  with  immortal  honors  by  the  angel  of  the  Lord,  —  when 
at  last  the  victorious  host,  sadly  joyful,   stood  on  the  banks 

^  2  Sprague 's  Decisions,  123. 


RESTORA  TION  OF  THE  SO  UTHERN  STA  TES.    1 1 7 

of  the  Jordan,  their  enemies  drowned  in  the  sea  or  slain  in  the 
wilderness,  —  they  paused,  and,  having  reviewed  the  history  of 
God's  dealings  with  them,  made  solemn  preparation  to  pass 
over  and  possess  the  land  of  promise.  By  the  command  of 
God,  given  through  Moses  and  enforced  by  his  great  successor, 
the  ark  of  the  covenant,  containing  the  tables  of  the  Law  and 
the  sacred  memorials  of  their  pilgrimage,  was  borne  by  chosen 
men  two  thousand  cubits  in  advance  of  the  people.  On  the 
farther  shore  stood  Ebal  and  Gerizim,  the  mounts  of  cursing 
and  blessing,  from  which,  in  the  hearing  of  all  the  people,  were 
pronounced  the  curses  of  God  against  injustice  and  disobe- 
dience, and  his  blessing  upon  justice  and  obedience.  On  the 
shore,  between  the  mountains  and  in  the  midst  of  the  people,  a 
monument  was  erected,  and  on  it  was  written  the  words  of  the 
law,  "  to  be  a  memorial  unto  the  children  of  Israel  for  ever  and 
ever."  Let  us  learn  wisdom  from  this  illustrious  example.  We 
have  passed  the  Red  Sea  of  slaughter;  our  garments  are  yet 
wet  with  its  crimson  spray.  We  have  crossed  the  fearful  wil- 
derness of  war,  and  have  left  our  three  hundred  thousand  heroes 
to  sleep  beside  the  dead  enemies  of  the  republic.  We  have 
heard  the  voice  of  God  amid  the  thunders  of  battle  command- 
ing us  to  wash  our  hands  of  iniquity,  —  to  '*  proclaim  liberty 
throughout  all  the  land  unto  all  the  inhabitants  thereof."  When 
we  spurned  his  counsels,  we  were  defeated,  and  the  gulfs  of 
ruin  yawned  before  us.  When  we  obeyed  his  voice,  he  gave 
us  victory.  And  now,  at  last,  we  have  reached  the  confines  of 
the  wilderness.  Before  us  is  the  land  of  promise,  the  land  of 
hope,  the  land  of  peace,  filled  with  possibilities  of  greatness 
and  glory  too  vast  for  the  grasp  of  the  imagination.  Arc  we 
worthy  to  enter  it?  On  what  condition  may  it  be  ours  to  enjoy 
and  transmit  to  our  children's  children?  Let  us  pause  and 
make  deliberate  and  solemn  preparation.  Let  us,  as  repre- 
sentatives of  the  people,  whose  servants  we  are,  bear  in  ad- 
vance the  sacred  ark  of  republican  liberty,  with  its  tables  of  the 
law  inscribed  with  the  "  irreversible  guaranties  "  of  liberty.  Let 
us  here  build  a  monument  on  which  shall  be  written,  not  only 
the  curses  of  the  law  against  treason,  disloyalty,  and  oppres- 
sion, but  also  an  everlasting  covenant  of  peace  and  blessing 
with  loyalty,  liberty,  and  obedience;  and  all  the  people  will 
say,  Amen ! 


AMERICAN     SHIPPING. 

REMARKS  MADE   IN  THE   HOUSE   OF   REPRESENTATIVES, 

February  i,  1866,  and  May  25,  187a 


Pending  a  bill  providing  that  no  ship  or  vessel  which  had  been  re- 
corded or  registered  as  an  American  vessel  pursuant  to  law,  and  which 
had  afterward  been  licensed  or  otherwise  authorized  to  sail  under  a  for- 
eign flag  or  the  protection  of  a  foreign  government  during  the  existence 
of  the  rebellion,  should  be  deemed  or  registered  as  an  American  vessel, 
or  should  have  the  rights  and  privileges  of  American  vessels,  except  under 
an  act  of  Congress  authorizing  such  registry,  Mr.  Garfield  made  the  fol- 
lowing remarks,  February  i,  1866. 

MR.  SPEAKER,  —  Without  having  examined  carefully 
the  navigation  laws  of  this  country,  I  have  looked  into 
tHem  enough  to  be  satisfied  of  one  or  two  things,  which  I  de- 
sire to  suggest  to  this  House  before  the  vote  is  taken  on  the 
passage  of  this  bill. 

In  the  first  place,  we  have  navigation  laws  borrowed  from 
those  monuments  of  tyranny,  the  Navigation  Laws  of  Great 
Britain,  which,  more  than  any  other  laws  ever  enacted  by  Par- 
liament, were  the  cause  of  the  American  Revolution.  Among 
other  features  of  these  laws  is  one  that  forbids  the  buying  of  a 
vessel  from  a  foreign  country  and  sailing  it  under  our  flag,  if 
it  is  a  foreign  bottom,  no  matter  how  cheaply  we  may  pur- 
chase it,  or  under  what  circumstances  we  may  obtain  it.  Un- 
less we  ourselves  lay  out  upon  it  more  money  than  the  origi- 
nal cost  of  building  the  bottom  abroad,  we  cannot  sail  it  under 
the  American  flag.  That,  of  course,  shuts  out  all  foreign-built 
vessels,  however  valuable  they  may  be  at  any  time.  But  I  am 
not  discussing  that  subject  now,  nor  will  I  enter  into  a  con- 
sideration of  it  at  this  time. 

The  question  now  under  consideration  is  this.  During  this 
great  war,  when  we  were  unable  to  protect  our  shipping  on  the 


I 

[ 


AMERICAN  SHIPPING.  119 

high  seas,  to  protect  our  ships  sailing  under  our  own  flag, 
there  were  many  patriotic  American  citizens  who  simply  regis- 
tered their  vessels  for  sailing  under  a  foreign  flag,  that  they 
might  carry  on  their  commerce  without  having  their  property 
destroyed  by  the  pirates  infesting  the  seas:  Now,  when  eight 
hundred  thousand  tons  of  American  shipping  has  thus  been 
transferred  by  registry  or  by  sale  to  foreign  flags,  it  is  pro- 
posed that  none  of  it  shall  ever  be  registered  again  with  the 
rights  and  privileges  of  American  vessels,  except  by  express 
act  of  Congress.  One  fifth  of  our  tonnage  has  left  us,  and  by 
this  bill  will  be  wholly  excluded  from  our  merchant  marine. 

Now,  one  gentleman  ^  has  spoken  of  these  vessels  as  deserters 
in  the  same  way  precisely  that  we  speak  of  deserters  from  our 
army.  I  care  far  more  about  our  tonnage  on  the  sea  than  I 
care  about  the  individual  shipper  who  took  a  register  under  a 
foreign  flag.  It  is  not  now  a  question  with  me  what  the  status 
of  the  shipper  himself  may  be.  I  do  not  propose  to  injure  all 
the  interests  of  our  merchant  marine  for  the  purpose  of  spiting 
a  few  of  our  speculators.  It  seems  to  me  it  would  show  a  great 
want  of  proper  policy  on  our  part  to  do  so. 

Mr.  Lynch.  What  I  did  say  was  this  :  that  it  would  be  impolitic  for 
any  government  to  encourage  the  desertion  of  its  citizens  with  their 
property  during  a  period  of  war,  those  citizens  identifying  their  interests 
for  the  time  being  with  the  interests  of  the  enemy.  My  remarks  had  no 
reference  whatever  to  "  skippers."  I  did  say,  and  I  now  repeat,  that 
every  man  who,  during  the  war,  put  his  vessel  under  a  foreign  flag  iden- 
tified his  interests  with  those  of  the  foreigners  who  were  assisting  in  the 
destruction  of  our  commerce  ;  and  if  we  encourage  such  desertion,  and 
pay  a  premium  upon  it,  some  of  our  citizens  will  always  desert  us  with 
their  property  in  time  of  war.  I  hold  that  we  should  not  give  encourage- 
ment to  conduct  of  this  sort. 

Mr.  Speaker,  if  in  time  of  war  I  own  a  piece  of  property 
which  I  cannot  keep  safe  in  this  country,  and  the  keeping  of 
which  will  ruin  me  pecuniarily,  I  ask  whether  the  Congress  of 
my  country  should  prohibit  me  from  selling  that  property  to 
foreigners,  or,  if  I  have  sold  it,  prohibit  me  from  repurchasing 
it  and  using  it  here  where  I  first  acquired  that  property?  If  I 
sell  to  a  Canadian,  or  any  other  foreigner,  an  engine  which  I 
own,  and  which  I  have  used  perhaps  to  operate  a  saw-mill  on 
the  Ohio,  is  it  right  that  I  should  be  prohibited  from  repurchas- 

1  Mr.  Lynch,  of  Maine. 


120  AMERICAN  SHIPPING. 

ing  that  engine  by  and  by,  and  using  it  in  this  country?  Now, 
sir,  this  bill  proposes  that,  whenever  an  American  vessel  shall 
have  been  sold  to  a  foreigner,  or  even  registered  to  sail  under 
a  foreign  flag,  such  vessel  shall  never  be  permitted  to  re-enter 
our  service  without  special  authority  from  Congress. 

Mr.  Eliot.  This  bill  does  not  refer  to  sales  of  vessels  at  all,  neither 
sham  sales  nor  bona  fide  sales.  It  only  covers  a  class  of  cases  where 
American  ship-owners  have  obtained  for  their  vessels  the  protection  of 
foreign  powers,  have  procured  permits  or  licenses  from  foreign  govem- 
ments,  thus  waiving  the  benefit  of  their  own  flag  for  the  sake  of  securing 
the  protection  of  foreign  powers.  The  bill  provides  that  in  such  cases 
the  vessel  shall  no  longer  be  deemed  an  American  vessel,  unless  the 
party  interested  can  satisfy  Congress  that  the  vessel  ought  to  be  granted 
an  American  register. 

Mr.  Speaker,  the  gentleman's  statement  is  all  the  worse  for 
his  cause.  He  says  that  the  bill  does  not  apply  to  a  vessel  that 
was  sold,  alienated  to  a  foreigner,  but  pierely  to  vessels  which 
were  registered  to  sail  under  a  foreign  flag  that  could  protect 
them.  What  the  owners  in  the  latter  cases  did  is  not  nearly  so 
bad  as  the  act  of  those  who  alienated  their  vessels  to  foreigners. 
I  say  that  the  owner  of  a  vessel,  if  our  flag  cannot  protect  it, 
ought  to  be  entitled  to  register  his  vessel  under  a  flag  that  can 
protect  it;  and  when  we  are  again  able  to  protect  it,  I  am  in 
favor,  if  not  for  his  sake,  at  least  for  the  sake  of  the  merchant 
service,  of  allowing  his  vessel  to  come  back  and  sail  under  our 
flag,  and  thus  increase  our  tonnage. 

I  maintain  that  this  question  is 'a  matter  of  tonnage,  and  not 
of  men.  I  am  in  favor  of  the  amendment  suggested  by  my 
colleague,^  that  all  these  cases  be  referred  to  the  Secretary  of 
the  Treasury,  who  may  look  into  the  question  of  the  loyalty  of 
the  owner;  and  that  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  shall  be  au- 
thorized to  register  his  vessel,  if  he  be  a  loyal  man.  I  would  be 
the  last  man  to  grant  any  favor  to  a  rebel ;  but  I  would  grant 
favors  to  the  American  merchant  service.  I  would  increase  our 
tonnage. 

Some  gentlemen  here  propose  to  wait  for  the  increase  of  our 
tonnage  until  the  shipbuilders  of  Maine  and  New  Hampshire, 
and  other  States  on  the  Atlantic  seaboard,  can  build  us  vessels. 
The  gentleman  from  Maine  ^  has  said  that  in  Nova  Scotia  vessels 
can  be  built  at  a  cost  of  forty  dollars  to  the  ton,  while  in  Maine 

1  Mr.  Spaulding.  a  Mr.  Pike. 


i 


AMERICAN  SHIPPING,  1 2 1 

their  construction  costs  one  hundred  dollars  to  the  ton.  There- 
fore, it  is  urged,  we  cannot  compete  with  foreign  shipbuilders. 
Now  I  do  not  propose  to  give  the  men  in  the  Atlantic  cities 
sixty  dollars  on  the  hundred,  when  we  can  get  increased  service 
for  the  country  by  simply  re-registering  the  vessels  which  we 
could  not  protect. 

Mr.  Pike.  Will  the  gentleman  tell  me  what  difference  it  makes  to  the 
shipper  in  New  York,  whether  he  imports  his  goods  in  British  or  Ameri- 
can bottoms  ?  What  difference  is  there  in  insurance  ?  And  will  he  tell 
me  further,  whether  it  is  not  a  fact  that  of  the  goods  imported  more  than 
seventy-five  per  cent  do  not  come  in  British  bottoms  ? 

I  will  answer  the  gentleman  with  one  general  fact,  namely, 
that,  for  some  reason  deemed  good  by  them,  the  owners  of  those 
vessels  which  have  been  registered  under  foreign  flags  desire  to 
bring  their  ships  back.  That  is  proved.  If  it  is  for  the  advantage 
of  the  ships  to  come  back  for  business,  they  will  come  back. 

Mr.  Pike.  The  gentleman  speaks,  not  of  shipbuilders,  but  of  mer- 
chants. He  says  that  merchants  would  forthwith  have  to  pay  enhanced 
prices  for  vessels.  I  ask  him  whether  he  cannot  employ  British  ships 
on  precisely  the  same  terms  to  import  his  goods  as  American  ships  ? 
Let  him  answer  that  question. 

Mr.  Speaker,  we  are  talking  now  of  shipping,  and  not  of  the 
interests  of  merchants  of  New  York.  We  arc  talking  of  our 
general  power  to  export  and  import  goods ;  and  now,  when  it  is 
proved  that  a  part  of  our  tonnage  has  gone  during  the  war,  we 
are  asked  to  keep  it  out  in  order  that  the  shipbuilders  of  this 
country  may  have  the  job  of  filling  the  vacuum.  I  propose  we 
shall  fill  that  vacuum  by  the  most  expeditious  method  in  our 
power. 

I  call  this  House  to  witness  that  at  the  last  session  I  declared, 
as  I  now  declare,  myself  forever  opposed  to  all  monopolies, 
whether  of  railroads,  shipbuilders,  or  of  any  other  associations, 
which  propose  to  cripple  the  commerce  of  the  republic  cither 
among  the  States  or  upon  the  high  seas.  I  look  on  this  as  one 
of  those  monopolies,  and  I  am  surprised  that  my  able  and  dis- 
tinguished friend  from  the  Galena  district,  Illinois,^  should  vote 
in  any  other  way  than  against  this  measure,  he  being  a  strong 
anti-monopoly  man,  as  he  has  so  often  avowed  himself  on  this 
floor.     I  do  not  care  what  political  company  it  puts  me  in;   I 

^  Mr.  Washburn. 


122  AMERICAN  SHIPPING. 

do  not  care  who  associates  with  me;  I  shall  associate  with 
every  man  who  puts  his  foot  down  on  these  monopolies,  one 
of  which  I  declare  this  to  be. 

[After  some  brief  speeches  from  several  gentlemen,  Mr.  Garfield  con- 
tinued.] 

Mr.  Speaker,  I  have  only  two  things  to  say  before  I  call  for 
the  previous  question  and  close  the  debate. 

The  distinguished  gentleman  from  Massachusetts^  said  this 
was  a  proposition  to  exclude  men  who  had  deserted  our  flag. 
I  declare  the  gentleman  has  not  met  the  point.  It  is  not  a  law 
against  men;  it  is  a  law  against  tonnage,  and  not  men.  He 
may  make  all  the  legislation  he  pleases  against  letting  disloyal 
men  come  back,  and  I  will  vote  with  him ;  but  let  him  make 
that  discrimination. 

He  says  we  propose  to  change  the  policy  of  the  government. 
My  answer  is  in  one  word.  It  is  the  gentleman  himself  who 
is  proposing  to  change  the  policy  of  the  government,  as  the 
Secretary  of  the  Treasury  is  every  day  allowing  these  vessels 
to  be  re-rcgistered.  They  propose  by  this  change  of  the  law  to 
keep  these  vessels  out  of  our  merchant  marine.  We  are  simply 
opposing  a  change  in  the  law  in  favor  of  a  monopoly. 

The  gentleman  from  Maine  ^  says,  if  we  make  free  trade  on 
this  subject,  let  us  make  free  trade  on  all.  He  will  not  deter 
me  from  my  purpose  by  shaking  that  red  rag  before  me.  I  do 
not  care  what  name  he  calls  it ;  I  know  it  is  not  free  trade ;  I 
know  only  that  what  he  proposes  is  to  discriminate  against  all 
other  property  and  in  favor  of  the  property  of  the  shipbuilders. 
If  he  will  apply  the  same  law  to  property  in  ships  that  he  applies 
to  all  kinds  of  property  in  the  great  West,  then  he  will  find  that 
he  cannot  maintain  his  law.  All  I  ask  is  that  the  same  law 
shall  be  applied  to  both.     I  call  the  previous  question. 


On  the  25th  of  May,  1870,  pending  a  bill  to  revive  the  navigation 
and  the  commercial  interests  of  the  United  States,  by  means  of  rebates 
of  duties  on  shipbuilding  materials  imported,  and  by  means  of  bounties 
on  tonnage,  Mr.  Garfield  said  :  — 

Mr.  Speaker,  —  I  desire  in  the  ten  minutes  awarded  me  to 
present  three  points  for  the  consideration  of  the  House. 

1  Mr.  Banks.  a  Mr.  Blaine 


i 


AMERICAN  SHIPPING.  123 

I  have  studied  this  subject  as  presented  in  the  report  of  the 
committee  and  elsewhere,  and  it  seems  to  me  that  the  trouble 
about  our  tonnage  at  the  present  time  is  not  that  there  is  a  lack 
of  tonnage  on  the  ocean,  but  that  American  people  do  not  con- 
trol a  requisite  share  of  that  tonnage.  It  seems  to  me  we  shall 
make  a  mistake  if  we  proceed  on  the  supposition  that  there  is 
a  lack  of  tonnage,  and  that  greater  means  of  transportation  on 
the  high  seas  are  needed.  In  a  report  made  in  1 861  by  an 
American  consul,  which  appears  to  be  a  very  comprehensive 
one,  it  was  shown  that  the  tonnage  of  the  world  was  about 
seventeen  million  tons,  of  which  the  United  States  owned  five 
and  a  half  millions ;  Great  Britain  five  and  three  quarters  mil- 
lions ;  and  all  other  countries  about  five  and  three  quarters  mil- 
lions. Or  we  might  say  that  the  tonnage  on  the  high  seas  was 
about  equally  divided  into  three  equal  shares,  of  which  one  was 
held  by  the  United  States,  one  by  Great  Britain,  and  one  by  all 
other  countries. 

It  appears  that  now,  in  consequence  of  the  war  and  various 
other  causes,  there  has  been  a  change  in  the  relative  ownership 
of  the  tonnage,  but  not  in  the  total  amount.  There  are  no 
complaints  from  shippers  that  they  cannot  get  merchandise 
shipped  across  the  sea.  They  complain  only  that  the  Ameri- 
can flag  does  not  cover  a  sufficient  amount  of  the  tonnage. 
The  question,  then,  which  we  have  to  determine,  is  this :  Will 
we  remedy  the  evil  by  increasing  the  total  volume  of  tonnage, 
or  shall  we  seek  some  method  of  placing  a  greater  share  of  it 
under  the  American  flag? 

From  the  latest  reports  of  our  Treasury  Department,  it  ap- 
pears that  the  total  tonnage  of  Great  Britain  is  now  5,500,000 
tons,  while  the  tonnage  of  the  United  States  is  4,144,640  tons. 
But  the  tonnage  of  the  United  States  includes  1,523,931  tons  in 
the  coasting  trade,  661,366  on  our  lakes,  and  392,901  on  our 
rivers,  leaving  our  ocean  tonnage  only  1,566,421  tons,  —  vastly 
less  than  it  was  before  the  war. 

The  trouble  is  not  that  we  have  not  tonnage  at  home ;  it  is 
that  we  lack  tonnage  on  the  seas.  At  the  present  moment 
there  are  one  hundred  and  seventeen  steamers  that  plough  the 
ocean  between  America  and  Europe,  and  not  one  of  them  flies 
the  American  flag.  Nevertheless,  a  respectable  share  of  the 
capital  in  those  ships  is  owned  by  Americans.  The  German 
line  is  very  largely  owned  by  American   citizens;    the  Guion 


124  AMERICAN  SHIPPING. 

line  is,  I  think,  also  mainly  owned  by  American  citizens ;  but 
these  citizens  are  compelled  to  put  their  capital  into  ships  that 
sail  under  foreign  flags.  These  facts  present  the  first  point  I 
desired  to  make,  in  order  that  we  may  see  where  the  difficulty 
lies,  and  keep  this  fact  in  view  in  adopting  remedies. 

I  now  desire  to  call  the  attention  of  the  House  to  a  second 
point,  which  is  this.  I  object  to  the  bill  as  reported  by  the 
committee  because  it  docs  not  give  aid  to  that  part  of  our  com- 
merce that  needs  relief,  to  our  foreign  tonnage,  and  does  give 
aid  where  relief  is  not  needed.  Now,  I  can  have  no  better 
pfoof  of  this  than  the  sensitiveness  of  the  gentleman  from 
Maine  ^  in  regard  to  any  amendment  which  shall  limit  the 
operation  of  the  bill  to  vessels  engaged  in  foreign  trade.  When 
the  bill  was  open  to  amendment  yesterday,  and  when  the  gen- 
tleman from  lowa^  proposed  an  amendment  of  six  words  to 
limit  all  these  drawbacks,  bounties,  subsidies,  tonnage  dues,  and 
various  aids  provided  in  the  bill  to  ships  of  two  thousand  tons 
and  upward,  the  gentleman  in  charge  of  the  bill  would  not 
permit  the  amendment  to  be  offered.  This  morning  the  gen- 
tleman has  offered  a  substitute,  which  I  have  read  at  the  clerk's 
desk,  and  I  find  it  only  limits  the  operation  of  the  bill  to  ships 
of  one  thousand  tons  and  upward,  which  would  include  a  large 
share  of  the  shipping  even  on  our  Northern  lakes,  and  which, 
in  all  its  more  important  features,  will  apply  to  the  coasting 
trade.  I  desire,  therefore,  to  say  that,  whatever  may  be  the 
purpose  of  those  who  support  this  bill,  it  is  perfectly  clear 
that  it  will  give  great  additional  advantages  to  the  builders  of 
ships  for  the  coasting  trade,  —  a  class  of  men  who  are  to-day 
engaged  in  a  business  of  which  they  have  the  absolute  monop- 
oly as  against  all  foreigners.  There  is  not  a  keel  owned  or 
built  by  foreigners  that  can,  under  our  laws,  engage  in  our  lake 
and  coasting  trade.  All  the  vessels  engaged  in  it  are  built  and 
wholly  owned  by  Americans.  There  appears  to  be  no  other 
falling  off  in  our  coasting  trade  than  that  which  the  natural 
competition  of  railroads  has  produced.  Now,  notwithstanding 
this  monopoly,  a  bill  is  proposed  that  cannot  take  less  than 
ten  million  dollars  a  year  out  of  the  treasury,  to  increase  the 
profits  of  those  who  are  engaged  m  building  vessels  for  the 
coasting  trade. 

But  I  have  further  asserted  that  this  bill  will  not  give  the 

1  Mr.  Lynch.  2  ^fr.  Allison. 


AMERICAN  SHIPPING.  125 

needed  relief  to  our  foreign  commerce.  And  why?  It  will 
not  enable  our  shipbuilders  to  compete  with  the  shipbuilders 
of  the  Clyde.  From  the  study  that  I  have  been  able  to  give  to 
the  subject,  I  affirm  that  all  the  subsidies,  bounties,  and  draw- 
backs provided  in  this  bill  will  not  enable  us  to  compete  with 
the  cheap  iron  vessels  built  on  that  river.  Germany  and  all  the 
maritime  countries  of  Europe,  even  those  that  admit  shipbuilding 
materials  free  of  duty,  have  utterly  failed  to  compete  with  the 
Clyde  shipbuilders.  All  the  maritime  countries  of  Europe  are 
to-day  going  to  them  to  buy  their  vessels  for  their  own  trade. 
The  price  of  labor  and  materials  there  is  so  much  less  than  here 
that  it  will  require  nearly  one  hundred  per  cent  of  government 
aid  to  enable  us  to  compete  with  them.  This  is  the  testimony 
of  experts  and  the  experience  of  other  nations.  I  affirm,  there- 
fore, that  for  the  purposes  of  our  foreign  trade  this  bill  is  wholly 
inadequate,  and  for  the  purposes  of  the  coasting  trade  it  is 
wholly  unnecessary.  On  this  statement,  to  which  I  challenge  the 
attention  of  the  House,  I  rest  my  opposition  to  this  bill.  But  I 
will  add  another  consideration. 

There  is  one  feature  of  this  bill,  the  subsidy  provision,  which 
is  odious  to  the  American  people.  It  is  a  feature,  I  think, 
which  no  man  in  this  House,  certainly  no  representative  of  an 
inland  district,  can  support  and  sustain  himself  before  his  con- 
stituents. And  now  we  are  called  upon,  at  the  last  moment,  to 
vote,  as  we  shall  be  compelled  to  do,  I  presume,  under  the  pre- 
vious question,  upon  a  new  bill,  which  has  not  yet  been  read, 
but  which  has  been  reported  by  the  committee  as  a  substitute 
for  the  original  bill  and  all  the  amendments.  Under  these  cir- 
cumstances, I  think  it  wiser  to  lay  the  bill  and  the  pending 
amendments  on  the  table,  or  to  recommit  and  postpone  it  until 
in  calmer  times  and  with  fuller  deliberation  we  can  devise  some 
real  and  effective  remedy  for  our  decayed  commerce.  I  am 
not  at  liberty  to  make  a  motion  on  this  subject,  and  will  now 
return  the  floor  to  the  gentleman  from  Illinois,^  by  whose 
courtesy  I  have  been  occupying  it. 

1  Mr.  Farnsworth. 


\ 


THE  NATIONAL  BUREAU  OF  EDUCATION. 

SPEECH  DELIVERED  IN  THE  HOUSE  OF  REPRESENTATIVES, 

June  8,  1866. 


At  its  annual  meeting  held  in  Washington,  D.  C,  in  February,  1866, 
the  National  Association  of  School  Superintendents  memorialized  Con- 
gress to  establish  a  National  Bureau  of  Education.  A  bill  was  also  pre- 
pared by  the  direction  of  the  Association,  embodying  its  vievi's.  By  the 
request  of  the  Association,  Mr.  Garfield  presented  the  memorial  and  the 
bill  in  the  House  of  Representatives.  The  bill  was  read  twice,  referred  to 
a  select  committee  of  seven,  and  ordered  printed.  April  3  following,  he 
reported  from  the  committee  d  substitute  for  the  original  bill,  —  changed 
only  in  the  name.  June  %  he  closed  the  debate  upon  the  bill  in  the 
following  speech.  The  vote  was  adverse.  Immediately  a  motion  to 
reconsider  was  entered.  June  1 9,  the  motion  to  reconsider  was  carried, 
and  the  bill  passed.  At  the  next  session  the  bill  passed  the  Senate,  and 
the  President's  approval,  March  2,  1867,  made  it  law. 

This  measure  was  peculiarly  Mr.  Garfield's  work.  He  introduced  the 
subject  to  the  House,  was  the  chairman  of  the  special  committee,  re- 
ported the  second  bill,  and  was  its  principal  champion  on  the  floor. 
Both  the  Bureau  and  his  speech  attracted  the  attention  of  educators  and 
the  friends  of  education  beyond  the  sea.    An  example  is  furnished  by 

the  following  letter :  — 

"  RocHDvVLE,  January  4,  186S. 

"  Dear  Sir,  —  I  ^vrite  to  thank  you  for  sending  me  a  copy  of  General 
Garfield's  speech  on  education.     I  have  read  it  with  much  interest 

"  The  department  now  to  be  constituted  at  Washington  will  doubt- 
less prepare  statistics  which  will  inform  the  world  of  what  is  doing  in  the 
United  States  on  the  Education  question ;  and  the  volume  it  will  publish 
will  have  a  great  effect  in  this  country,  and,  indeed,  in  all  civilized 
countries.  You  will  have  observed  the  increased  interest  in  education 
shown  in  England  since  the  extension  of  the  suffrage.  I  hope  some 
great  and  good  measure  may  be  passed  at  an  early  period.     I  am  very 

truly  yours. 

"John  Bright. 

"George  J.  Abbott,  Esq.,  United  States  Consul,  Sheffield." 


THE  NA TIONAL  B  UREA  U  OF  ED  UCA  TION.      1 27 

The  bill  as  drawn  by  Mr.  Garfield,  and  as  it  became  a  law,  is  as 
follows :  — 

"  An  Act  to  establish  a  Department  of  Education. 

"  Be  it  enacted  by  the  Senate  and  House  of  Representatives  of  the  United 
States  of  America  in  Congress  assembled^  That  there  shall  be  established, 
at  the  city  of  Washington,  a  Department  of  Education,  for  the  purpose 
of  collecting  such  statistics  and  facts  as  shall  show  the  condition  and  pro- 
gress of  education  in  the  several  States  and  Territories,  and  of  diffusing 
such  information  respecting  the  organization  and  management  of  schools 
and  school  systems,  and  methods  of  teaching,  as  shall  aid  the  people 
of  the  United  States  in  the  establishment  and  maintenance  of  efficient 
,  school  systems,  and  otherwise  promote  the  cause  of  education  throughout 
the  country. 

"  Sec.  2.  And  be  it  further  enacted y  That  there  shall  be  appointed  by 
the  President,  by  and  with  the  advice  and  consent  of  the  Senate,  a  Com- 
missioner of  Education,  who  shall  be  intrusted  with  the  management  of 
the  Department  herein  established,  and  who  shall  receive  a  salary  of  four 
thousand  dollars  per  annum,  and  who  shall  have  authority  to  appoint  one 
chief  clerk  of  his  Department,  who  shall  receive  a  salary  of  two  thousand 
dollars  per  annum,  one  clerk  who  shall  receive  a  salary  of  eighteen 
hundred  dollars  per  annum,  and  one  clerk  who  shall  receive  a  salary  of 
sixteen  hundred  dollars  per  annum,  which  said  clerks  shall  be  subject  to 
the  appointing  and  removing  power  of  the  Commissioner  of  Education. 

"  Sec.  3.  And  be  it  further  enacted^  That  it  shall  be  the  duty  of  the 
Commissioner  of  Education  to  present  annually  to  Congress  a  report 
embod}ing  the  results  of  his  investigations  and  labors,  together  with  a 
statement  of  such  facts  and  recommendations  as  will,  in  his  judgment, 
subserve  the  purpose  for  which  this  Department  is  established.  In  the 
first  report  made  by  the  Commissioner  of  TLducation  under  this  act, 
there  shall  be  presented  a  statement  of  the  several  grants  of  land  made  by 
Congress  to  promote  education,  and  the  manner  in  which  these  several 
trusts  have  been  managed,  the  amount  of  funds  arising  therefrom,  and 
the  annual  proceeds  of  the  same,  as  far  as  the  same  can  be  determined. 

"  Sec.  4.  And  be  it  further  enacted.  That  the  Commissioner  of  Public 
Buildings  is  hereby  authorized  and  directed  to  furnish  proper  offices  for 
the  use  of  the  Department  herein  established.'* 


MR.  SPEAKER,  —  I  did  intend  to  make  a  somewhat  elabo- 
rate statement  of  the  reasons  why  the  select  committee 
recommend  the  passage  of  this  bill ;  but  I  know  the  anxiety 
that  many  gentlemen  feel  to   have   the   debate   concluded,  to 


1 28      THE  NA TIONAL  B  UREA  U  OF  ED  UCA TION. 

allow  the  private  bills  now  on  the  calendar,  and  set  for  to- 
day, to  be  disposed  of,  and  to  complete  as  soon  as  possible 
the  work  oif  this  session.  I  will  therefore  abandon  my  original 
purpose,  and  restrict  myself  to  a  brief  statement  of  a  few 
leading  points  in  the  argument,  and  leave  the  decision  with 
the  House.  I  hope  this  waiving  of  a  full  discussion  of  the  bill 
will  not  be  construed  into  a  confession  that  it  is  inferior  in 
importance  to  any  measure  before  the  House;  for  I  know  of 
none  that  has  a  nobler  object,  or  that  more  vitally  affects  the 
future -of  this  nation. 

I  first  ask  the  House  to  consider  the  magnitude  of  the 
interests  involved  in  the  bill.  The  very  attempt  •to  discover  ' 
the  amount  of  pecuniary  and  personal  interest  we  have  in  our 
schools  shows  the  necessity  of  such  a  law  as  is  here  proposed. 
I  have  searched  in  vain  for  any  complete  or  reliable  statistics 
showing  the  educational  condition  of  the  whole  country.  The 
estimates  that  I  have  made  are  gathered  from  various  sources^ 
and  can  be  only  approximately  correct.  I  am  satisfied,  how- 
ever, that  they  are  far  below  the  truth. 

Even  from  the  incomplete  and  imperfect  educational  sta- 
tistics of  the  Census  Bureau,  it  appears  that  in  i860  there 
were  in  the  United  States  115,224  common  schools,  500,000 
school  officers,  150,241  teachers,  and  5,477,037  scholars;  thus 
showing  that  more  than  6,000,000  of  the  people  of  the  United 
States  are  directly  engaged  in  the  work  of  education.  Not 
only  has  this  large  proportion  of  our  population  been  thus 
engaged,  but  the  Congress  of  the  United  States  has  given 
53,000,000  acres  of  public  lands  to  fourteen  States  and  Ter- 
ritories of  the  Union  for  the  support  of  schools.  In  the  old 
ordinance  of  1785,  it  was  provided  that  one  section  of  every 
township  —  one  thirty-sixth  of  all  the  public  lands  of  the 
United  States  —  should  be  set  apart,  and  held  forever  sacred 
to  the  support  of  the  schools  of  the  country.  In  the  ordinance 
of  1787,  it  was  declared  that,  "religion,  morality,  and  knowl- 
edge being  necessary  to  good  government  and  the  happiness 
of  mankind,  schools  and  the  means  of  education  shall  forever 
be  encouraged."  It  is  estimated  that  at  least  $50,000,000 
has  been  given  in  the  United  States  by  private  individuals 
for  the  support  of  schools.  We  have  thus  an  interest,  even 
pecuniarily  considered,  hardly  second  to  any  other.  We  have 
school  statistics  tolerably  complete  from  only  seventeen  States 


THE  NA  T TONAL  B  UREA  U  OF  ED  UCA  TION.      1 29 

of  the  Union.  Our  Congressional  library  contains  no  edu- 
cational reports  whatever  from  the  remaining  nineteen.  In 
those  seventeen  States,  there  are  90,835  schools,  129,000  teach- 
ers, 5,107,285  pupils;  and  $34,000,000  is  annually  appropri- 
ated by  the  legislatures  for  the  support  and  maintenance  of 
common  schools.  Notwithstanding  the  great  expenditures  en- 
tailed upon  them  during  four  years  of  war,  they  raised  by 
taxation  $34,000,000  annually  for  the  support  of  public  edu- 
cation. In  several  States  of  the  Union,  more  than  fifty  per 
cent  of  all  the  tax  imposed  for  State  purposes  is  for  the  sup- 
port of  the  public  schools.  And  yet  gentlemen  are  impatient 
because  we  wish  to  occupy  a  short  time  in  considering  this 
bill. 

I  will  not  trouble  the  House  by  repeating  such  commonplaces, 
so  familiar  to  every  gentleman  here,  as  that  our  system  of  govern- 
ment is  based  upon  the  intelligence  of  the  people.  But  I  wish 
to  suggest  that  there  never  has  been  a  time  when  all  our  educa- 
tional forces  should  be  in  such  perfect  activity  as  at  the  present 
day.  Ignorance — stolid  ignorance — is  not  our  most  dangerous 
enemy.  There  is  very  little  of  that  kind  of  ignorance  among  the 
white  population  of  this  country.  In  the  Old  World,  among 
the  despotic  governments  of  Europe,  the  great  disfranchised 
class  —  the  pariahs  of  political  and  social  life  —  are  indeed 
ignorant,  mere  inert  masses,  moved  and  controlled  by  the  intel- 
ligent and  cultivated  aristocracy.  Any  unrepresented  and  hope- 
lessly disfranchised  class  in  a  government  will  inevitably  be 
struck  with  intellectual  paralysis.  Our  late  slaves  afford  a  sad 
illustration.  But  among  the  represented  and  voting  classes  of 
this  country,  where  all  are  equal  before  the  law,  and  every  man 
is  a  political  power  for  good  or  evil,  there  is  but  little  of  the 
inertia  of  ignorance.  The  alternatives  are  not  education  or  no 
education ;  but  shall  the  power  of  the  citizen  be  directed  aright 
towards  industry,  liberty,  and  patriotism?  or,  under  the  baneful 
influence  of  false  theories  and  evil  influences,  shall  it  lead  him 
continually  downward,  and  work  out  anarchy  and  ruin,  both  to 
him  and  the  government?  If  he  is  not  educated  in  the  school 
of  virtue  and  integrity,  he  will  be  educated  in  the  school  of  vice 
and  iniquity.  We  are,  therefore,  afloat  on  the  sweeping  current: 
we  must  make  head  against  it,  or  we  shall  go  down  with  it  to 
the  saddest  of  destinies.  According  to  the  census  of  i860, 
there   were    1,218,311    inhabitants  of  the   United   States   over 

VOL.  L  9 


1 30      THE  NA  TIONAL  B  UREA  U  OF  ED  UCA  TION. 

twenty-one  years  of  age  who  could  not  read  or  write;  and 
871,418  of  these  were  American-born  citizens.  One  third  of  a 
million  of  people  are  being  annually  thrown  upon  our  shores 
from  the  Old  World,  a  large  per  cent  of  whom  are  uneducated ; 
and  the  gloomy  total  has  been  swelled  by  the  four  million  slaves 
admitted  to  citizenship  by  the  events  of  the  war. 

Such,  sir,  is  the  immense  force  which  we  must  now  confront 
by  the  genius  of  our  institutions  and  the  light  of  our  civiliza- 
tion. How  shall  it  be  done?  An  American  citizen  can  give 
but  one  answer.  We  must  pour  upon  them  all  the  light  of  our 
public  schools.  We  must  make  them  intelligent,  industrious, 
patriotic  citizens,  or  they  will  drag  us  and  our  children  down  to 
their  level.  Does  not  this  question  rise  to  the  full  height  of 
national  importance,  and  demand  the  best  efforts  of  statesman- 
ship to  adjust  it? 

Horace  Mann  has  well  said,  — 

"  Legislators  and  rulers  are  responsible.  In  our  country  and  in  our 
times  no  man  is  worthy  the  honored  name  of  a  statesman  who  does  not 
include  the  highest  practicable  education  of  the  people  in  all  his  plans 
of  administration.  He  may  have  eloquence,  he  may  have  a  knowledge 
of  all  history,  diplomacy,  jurispmdence,  and  by  these  he  may  claim,  in 
other  countries,  the  elevated  rank  of  a  statesman  ;  but  unless  he  speaks, 
plans,  labors,  at  all  times  and  in  all  places,  for  the  culture  and  edification 
of  the  whole  people,  he  is  not,  he  cannot  be,  an  American  statesman."  ^ 

Gentlemen  who  have  discussed  the  bill  this  morning  tell  us 
that  it  will  result  in  great  expense  to  the  government.  Whether 
an  enterprise  is  expensive  or  not  is  altogether  a  relative  ques- 
tion, to  be  determined  by  the  importance  of  the  object  in  view. 

Now,  what  have  we  done  as  a  nation  in  the  way  of  expenses? 
In  1832  we  organized  a  Coast  Survey  Bureau,  and  have  ex- 
pended millions  upon  it.  Its  officers  have  triangulated  thou- 
sands of  miles  of  our  coasts,  have  made  soundings  of  all  our 
bays  and  harbors,  and  carefully  mapped  the  shoals,  breakers, 
and  coast-lines  from  our  northern  boundary  on  the  Atlantic  to 
the  extreme  northern  boundary  on  the  Pacific  coast.  They 
have  established  eight  hundred  tidal  stations  to  observe  the  fluc- 
tuations of  the  tides.  We  have  expended  vast  sums  in  order 
perfectly  to  know  the  topography  of  our  coasts,  lakes,  and  rivers, 
that  we  might  make  navigation  more  safe.  Is  it  of  no  conse- 
quence that  we  explore  the  boundaries  of  that  wonderful  intel- 

>  Life  and  Works,  Vol.  II.  p.  1S8  (Cambridge,  1867). 


THE  NA  TIONAL  B  UREA  U  OF  ED  UCA  TION.      \  3 1 

lectual  empire  which  encloses  within  its  domain  the  fate  of 
succeeding  generations  and  of  this  republic?  The  children  of 
to-day  will  be  the  architects  of  our  country's  destiny  in  1900. 

We  have  established  an  Astronomical  Observatory,  where 
the  movements  of  the  stars  are  watched,  latitude  and  longitude 
calculated,  and  chronometers  regulated  for  the  benefit  of  navi- 
gation. For  this  observatory  we  pay  one  third  of  a  million  per 
annum.  Is  it  of  no  consequence  that  you  observe  the  move- 
ments of  those  stars  which  shall,  in  the  time  to  come,  be  guid- 
ing 3tars  in  our  national  firmament? 

We  have  established  a  Light-House  Board  that  is  employing 
all  the  aids  of  science  to  discover  the  best  modes  of  regulating 
the  beacons  upon  our  shores :  it  is  placing  buoys  as  way-marks 
to  guide  ships  safely  into  our  harbors.  Will  you  not  create  a 
light-house  board  to  set  up  beacons  for  the  coming  genera- 
tion, not  as  lights  to  the  eye,  but  to  the  mind  and  heart,  that 
shall  guide  them  safely  in  the  perilous  voyage  of  life,  and  enable 
them  to  transmit  the  blessings  of  liberty  to  those  who  shall 
come  after  them  ? 

We  have  set  on  foot  a  score  of  expeditions  to  explore  the 
mountains  and  valleys,  the  lakes  and  rivers,  of  this  and  other 
countries.  We  have  expended  money  without  stint  to  explore 
the  Amazon  and  the  Jordan,  Chili  and  Japan,  the  gold  shores 
of  Colorado  and  the  copper  cliffs  of  Lake  Superior,  to  gather 
and  publish  the  great  facts  of  science,  and  to  exhibit  the 
material  resources  of  physical  nature.  Will  you  refuse  the 
pitiful  sum  of  $13,000  to  collect  and  record  the  intellectual 
resources  of  this  country,  the  elements  that  lie  behind  all 
material  wealth,  and  make  it  either  a  curse  or  a  blessing? 

We  have  paid  three  quarters  of  a  million  dollars  for  the  sur- 
vey of  the  route  for  the  Pacific  Railroad,  and  have  published 
the  results,  at  a  great  cost,  in  thirteen  quarto  volumes,  with 
accompanying  maps  and  charts.  The  money  for  these  pur- 
poses was  freely  expended.  And  now,  when  it  is  proposed  to 
appropriate  $13,000  to  aid  in  increasing  the  intelligence  of 
those  who  will  use  that  great  continental  highway  when  it  is 
completed,  we  are  reminded  of  our  debts,  and  warned  against 
increasing  our  expenditures.  It  is  difficult  to  treat  such  an 
objection  with  the  respect  that  is  always  due  in  this  hall  of 
legislation. 

We   have   established   a   Patent- Office,   where   are   annually 


1 3  2      THE  NA  TIONAL  B  UREA  U  OF  ED  UCA  TION. 

accumulated  thousands  of  models  of  new  machines  invented 
by  our  people.  Will  you  make  no  expenditure  for  the  benefit 
of  the  intelligence  that  shall  stand  behind  those  machines,  and 
be  their  controller?  Will  you  bestow  all  your  favors  upon  the 
engine  and  ignore  the  engineer?  I  will  not  insult  the  intelli- 
gence of  this  House  by  waiting  to  prove  that  money  paid  for 
education  is  the  most  economical  of  all  expenditures ;  that  it  is 
cheaper  to  prevent  crime  than  to  build  jails ;  that  schoolhouses 
are  less  expensive  than  rebellions.  A  tenth  of  our  national 
debt  expended  in  public  education  fifty  years  ago  would  .  have 
saved  us  the  blood  and  treasure  of  the  late  war.  A  far  less  sum 
may  save  our  children  from  a  still  greater  calamity. 

We  expend  hundreds  of  thousands  annually  to  promote  the 
agricultural  interests  of  the  country, —  to  introduce  the  best 
methods  in  all  that  pertains  to  husbandry.  Is  it  not  of  more 
consequence  to  do  something  for  the  farmer  of  the  future  than 
for  the  farm  of  to-day?  As  man  is  more  precious  than  soil,  as 
the  immortal  spirit  is  nobler  than  the  clod  it  animates,  so  is  the 
object  of  this  bill  more  important  than  any  mere  pecuniary 
interest. 

The  genius  of  our  government  does  not  allow  us  to  establish 
a  compulsory  system  of  education,  as  is  done  in  some  of  the 
countries  of  Europe.  There  are  States  in  this  Union,  however, 
which  have  adopted  a  compulsory  system;  and  perhaps  that 
is  well.  It  is  for  each  State  to  determine.  A  distinguished 
gentleman  from  Rhode  Island  told  me  lately,  that  it  is  now  the 
law  in  that  State  that  every  child  within  its  bordefs  shall  attend 
school,  and  that  every  vagrant  child  shall  be  taken  in  charge  by 
the  authorities,  and  sent  to  school.  It  may  be  well  for  other 
States  to  pursue  the  same  course;  but  probably  the  general 
government  can  do  nothing  of  the  sort.  Whether  it  has  the 
right  of  compulsory  control  or  not,  we  propose  none  in  this 
bill.  But  we  do  propose  to  use  that  power,  so  effective  in  this 
country,  of  letting  in  light  on  subjects,  and  holding  them  up 
to  the  verdict  of  public  opinion.  If  it  could  be  published 
annually  from  this  Capitol,  through  every  school  district  of  the 
United  States,  that  there  are  States  in  the  Union  that  have  no 
system  of  common  schools,  —  and  if  their  records  could  be 
placed  beside  the  records  of  such  States  as  Massachusetts,  New 
York,  Pennsylvania,  Ohio,  and  other  States  that  have  a  com- 
mon-school system, — the  mere  statement  of   the   fact  would 


THE  NATIONAL  BUREAU  OF  EDUCATION       133 

rouse  their  energies,  and  compel  them  for  shame  to  educate 
their  children.  It  would  shame  all  the  delinquent  States  out  of 
their  delinquency. 

Mr.  Speaker,  if  I  were  called  upon  to-day  to  point  to  that  in 
my  own  State  of  which  I  am  most  proud,  I  would  not  point  to 
any  of  the  flaming  lines  of  her  military  record,  to  the  heroic 
men  and  the  brilliant  officers  she  gave  to  this  contest ;  I  would 
not  point  to  any  of  her  leading  men  of  the  past  or  the  present : 
but  I  would  point  to  her  common  schools;  I  would  point  to  the 
honorable  fact,  that  in  the  great  struggle  of  five  years,  through 
which  we  have  just  passed,  she  has  expended  $12,000,000  for 
the  support  of  her  public  schools.  I  do  not  include  in  that 
amount  the  sums  expended  upon  our  higher  institutions  of  learn- 
ing. I  would  point  to  the  fact,  that  fifty-two  per  cent  of  the 
taxation  of  Ohio  for  the  last  five  years,  aside  from  the  war-tax 
and  the  tax  for  the  payment  of  her  public  debt,  has  been  for 
the  support  of  her  schools.  I  would  point  to  the  schools  of 
Cincinnati,  Cleveland,  Toledo,  and  other  cities  of  the  State,  if  I 
desired  a  stranger  to  see  the  glory  of  Ohio.  I  would  point  to 
the  13,000  schoolhouses  and  the  700,000  pupils  in  the  schools  of 
Ohio.  I  would  point  to  the  $3,000,000  she  has  paid  for  schools 
during  the  last  year  alone.  This,  in  my  judgment,  is  the  proper 
gauge  by  which  to  measure  the  progress  and  glory  of  States. 

Gentlemen  tell  us  there  is  no  need  of  this  bill ;  the  States  are 
doing  well  enough  now.  Do  they  know  through  what  a  strug- 
gle every  State  has  come  up  that  has  secured  a  good  system 
of  common  schools?     Let  me  illustrate  this  by  one  example. 

Notwithstanding  the  early  declaration  of  William  Penn,  •*That 
which  makes  a  good  constitution  must  keep  it,  namely,  men  of 
wisdom  and  virtue,  —  qualities  that,  because  they  descend  not 
with  worldly  inheritance,  must  be  carefully  propagated  by  a  vir- 
tuous education  of  youth,  for  which  spare  no  cost,  for  by  such 
parsimony  all  that  is  saved  is  lost " ;  notwithstanding  that  wise 
master-builder  incorporated  this  sentiment  in  his  "framework  of 
government,"  and  made  it  the  duty  of  the  Governor  and  Council 
"to  establish  and  support  public  schools";  notwithstanding 
Benjamin  Franklin,  from  the  first  hour  he  became  a  citizen  of 
Pennsylvania,  inculcated  the  value  of  useful  knowledge  to  every 
human  being  in  every  walk  of  life,  and  by  his  personal  and  pe- 
cuniary effort  did  establish  schools  and  a  college  for  Philadel- 
phia; notwithstanding  the  Constitution  of  Pennsylvania  made  it 


1 34       THE  NA  TIONAL  B  UREA  U  OF  ED  UCA  TION. 

obligatory  upon  the  legislature  to  foster  the  education  of  the 
citizens:  notwithstanding  all  this,  it  was  not  till  1833-34  that  a 
system  of  common  schools,  supported  in  part  by  taxation  of  the 
property  of  the  State,  for  the  common  benefit  of  all  the  chil- 
dren of  the  State,  was  established  by  law ;  and  although  the  law 
was  passed  by  an  almost  unanimous  vote  of  both  branches  of 
the  legislature,  so  foreign  was  the  idea  of  public  schools  to  the 
habits  of  the  people,  so  odious  was  the  idea  of  taxation  for  this 
purpose,  that  even  the  poor  who  were  to  be  specially  benefited 
were  so  deluded  by  political  demagogues  as  to  clamor  for  its 
repeal.  Many  members  who  voted  for  the  law  lost  their  nom- 
inations; and  others,  although  nominated,  lost  their  elections. 
Some  were  weak  enough  to  pledge  themselves  to  a  repeal  of  the 
law;  and  in  the  session  of  1835  there  was  an  almost  certain 
prospect  of  its  repeal,  and  the  adoption  in  its  place  of  an 
odious  and  limited  provision  for  educating  the  children  of  the 
poor  by  themselves.  In  the  darkest  hour  of  the  debate,  when 
the  hearts  of  the  original  friends  of  the  system  were  failing 
from  fear,  there  rose  on  the  floor  of  the  House  one  of  its  early 
champions ;  one  who,  though  not  a  native  of  the  State,  felt  like 
a  knife  in  his  bosom  the  disgrace  which  the  repeal  of  this  law 
would  inflict;  one  who,  though  no  kith  or  kin  of  his  would  be 
benefited  by  the  operations  of  the  system,  and  who,  though  he 
would  share  its  burdens,  would  only  partake  with  every  citizen 
in  its  blessings;  one  who  voted  for  the  original  law  although 
introduced  by  his  political  opponents,  and  who  had  defended 
and  gloried  in  his  vote  before  an  angry  and  unwilling  constit- 
uency: this  man,  then  in  the  beginning  of  his  public  career, 
threw  himself  into  the  conflict,  and  by  his  earnest  and  brave 
eloquence  saved  the  law,  and  gave  a  noble  system  of  common 
schools  to  Pennsylvania.  I  doubt  if  at  this  hour,  after  the 
thirty  years  crowded  full  of  successful  labors  at  the  bar,  before 
the  people,  and  in  halls  of  legislation,  the  venerable  and  dis- 
tinguished member,  who  now  represents  a  portion  of  the  same 
State  in  this  House,^  can  recall  any  other  speech  of  his  life 
with  half  the  pleasure  he  does  that  one ;  for  no  measure  with 
which  his  name  has  been  connected  is  so  fraught  with  bless- 
ings to  hundreds  of  thousands  of  children,  and  to  homes  in- 
numerable. I  hold  in  my  hand  a  copy  of  his  brave  speech, 
and  I  ask  the  clerk  to  read  the  passages  that  I  have  marked. 

*  Mr.  Stevens. 


THE  NA  TIONAL  B  UREA  U  OF  ED  UCA  TION,       1 3  5 

"  I  am  comparatively  a  stranger  among  you,  bom  in  another,  in  a  dis- 
tant State  :  no  parent  or  kindred  of  mine  did,  does,  or  probably  ever  will 
dwell  within  your  borders.  I  have  none  of  those  strong  cords  to  bind 
me  to  your  honor  and  your  interest ;  yet,  if  there  is  any  one  thing  on 
earth  which  I  ardently  desire  above  all  others,  it  is  to  see  Pennsylvania 
standing  up  in  her  intellectual,  as  she  confessedly  does  in  her  physical 
resources,  high  above  all  her  confederate  rivals.  How  shameful,  then, 
would  it  be  for  these  her  native  sons  to  feel  less  so,  when  the  dust  of  their 
ancestors  is  mingled  with  her  soil,  their  friends  and  relatives  enjoy  her 
present  prosperity,  and  their  descendants,  for  long  ages  to  come,  will  par- 
take of  her  happiness  or  misery,  her  glory  or  her  infamy  !  .  .  .  . 

"  In  giving  this  law  to  posterity  you  act  the  part  of  the  philanthropist, 
by  bestowing  upon  the  poor,  as  well  as  the  rich,  the  greatest  earthly  boon 
which  they  are  capable  of  receiving ;  you  act  the  part  of  the  philosopher, 
by  pointing,  if  you  do  not  lead  them,  up  the  hill  of  science  ;  you  act  the 
part  of  the  hero,  if  it  be  true,  as  you  say,  that  popular  vengeance  follows 
dose  upon  your  footsteps.  Here,  then,  if  you  wish  true  popularity,  is  a 
theatre  on  which  you  may  acquire  it 

"  Let  all,  therefore,  who  would  sustain  the  character  of  the  philosopher 
or  philanthropist,  sustain  this  law.  Those  who  would  add  thereto  the 
glory  of  the  hero  can  acquire  it  here ;  for,  in  the  present  state  of  feeling 
in  Pennsylvania,  I  am  willing  to  admit  that  but  littie  less  dangerous  to 
the  public  man  is  the  war-club  and  battle-axe  of  savage  ignorance  than 
to  the  lion-hearted  Richard  was  the  keen  cimeter  of  the  Saracen.  He 
who  would  oppose  it,  either  through  inability  to  comprehend  the  advan- 
tages of  general  education,  or  from  unwillingness  to  bestow  them  on  all 
his  fellow-citizens,  even  to  the  lowest  and  the  poorest,  or  from  dread  of 
popular  vengeance,  seems  to  me  to  want  either  the  head  of  the  philoso- 
pher, the  heart  of  the  philanthropist,  or  the  nerve  of  the  hero." 

He  has  lived  long  enough  to  see  this  law,  which  he  helped  to 
found  in  1834,  and  more  than  any  other  man  was  instrumental 
in  saving  from  repeal  in  1835,  expanded  and  consolidated  into 
a  noble  system  of  public  instruction.  Twelve  thousand  schools 
have  been  built  by  the  voluntary  taxation  of  the  people,  at  a 
cost,  for  schoolhouses  alone,  of  nearly  $10,000,000.  Many  mil- 
lions of  children  have  been  educated  in  these  schools.  More 
than  seven  hundred  thousand  attended  the  public  schools  of 
Pennsylvania  in  1864-65;  and  their  annual  cost,  provided  by 
voluntary  taxation  in  the  year  1864,  was  nearly  $3,000,000, 
giving  employment  to  sixteen  thousand  teachers.  It  is  glory 
enough  for  one  man  to  have  connected  his  name  so  honorably 
with  the  original  establishment  and  effective  defence  of  such  a 
system. 


1 36      THE  NA  TIONAL  B  UREA  U  OF  ED  UCA  TION. 

But  it  is  said  that  the  thirst  for  knowledge  among  the  young, 
and  the  pride  and  ambition  of  parents  for  their  children,  are 
agencies  powerful  enough  to  establish  and  maintain  thorough 
and  comprehensive  systems  of  education.  This  suggestion  is 
answered  by  the  unanimous  voice  of  publicists  and  political 
economists.  They  all  admit  that  the  doctrine  of  "  demand  and 
supply  '*  does  not  apply  to  educational  wants.  Even  the  most 
extreme  advocates  of  the  principle  of  laissez  faire,  as  a  sound 
maxim  of  political  philosophy,  admit  that  governments  must 
interfere  in  aid  of  education.  We  must  not  wait  for  the  wants 
of  the  rising  generation  to  be  expressed  in  a  demand  for  means 
of  education.  We  must  ourselves  discover  or  supply  their  needs 
before  the  time  for  supplying  them  has  forever  passed.  John 
Stuart  Mill  says:  — 

"  But  there  are  other  things,  of  the  worth  of  which  the  demand  of  the 
market  is  by  no  means  a  test ;  things  of  which  the  utility  does  not  consist 
in  ministering  to  inclinations,  nor  in  serving  the  daily  uses  of  life,  and 
the  want  of  which  is  least  felt  where  the  need  is  greatest.  This  is  pecu- 
liarly true  of  those  things  which  are  chiefly  useful  as  tending  to  raise  the 
character  of  human  beings.  The  uncultivated  cannot  be  competent 
judges  of  cultivation. 

"  Those  who  most  need  to  be  made  wiser  and  better  usually  desire  it 
least,  and,  if  they  desired  it,  would  be  incapable  of  finding  the  way  to  it 
by  their  own  lights.  It  will  continually  happen,  on  the  voluntary  system, 
that,  the  end  not  being  desired,  the  means  will  not  be  provided  at  all,  or 
that,  the  persons  requiring  improvement  having  an  imperfect  or  alto- 
gether erroneous  conception  of  what  they  want,  the  supply  called  forth 
by  the  demand  of  the  market  will  be  anything  but  what  is  really  required. 
Now,  any  well-intentioned  and  tolerably  civilized  government  may  tliink, 
without  presumption,  that  it  does,  or  ought  to,  possess  a  degree  of  culti- 
vation above  the  average  of  the  community  which  it  rules,  and  that  it 
should  therefore  be  capable  of  offering  better  education  and  better  in- 
struction to  the  people  than  the  greater  number  of  them  would  sponta- 
neously select. 

*'  Education,  therefore,  is  one  of  those  things  which  it  is  admissible  in 
principle  that  a  government  should  provide  for  the  people.  The  case  is 
one  to  which  the  reasons  of  the  non-interference  principle  do  not  neces- 
sarily or  universally  extend. 

"  With  regard  to  elementary  education,  the  exception  to  ordinary  niles 
may,  I  conceive,  justifiably  be  carried  still  further.  There  are  certain 
primary  elements  and  means  of  knowledge  which  it  is  in  the  highest  de- 
gree desirable  that  all  human  beings  bom  into  the  community  should 


THE  NATIONAL  BUREAU  OF  EDUCATION      137 

acquire  during  childhood.  If  their  parents,  or  those  on  whom  they  de- 
pend, have  the  power  of  obtaining  for  them  this  instruction,  and  fail  to 
do  it,  they  commit  a  double  breach  of  duty,  —  toward  the  children  them- 
selves, and  toward  the  members  of  the  community  generally,  who  are  all 
liable  to  suffer  seriously  from  the  consequences  of  ignorance  and  want  of 
education  in  their  fellow-citizens.  It  is,  therefore,  an  allowable  exercise 
of  the  powers  of  a  government  to  impose  on  parents  the  legal  obligation 
of  giving  elementary  instruction  to  children.  This,  however,  cannot 
fairly  be  done  without  taking  measures  to  insure  that  such  instruction 
shall  be  always  accessible  to  them,  either  gratuitously  or  at  a  trifling 
expense."  * 

This  is  the  testimony  of  economic  science.  I  trust  the  states- 
men of  this  Congress  will  not  think  the  subject  of  education  too 
humble  a  theme  for  their  most  serious  consideration.  It  has  en- 
gaged the  earnest  attention  of  the  best  men  of  ancient  and  mod- 
ern times,  especially  of  modern  statesmen  and  philanthropists. 

I  shall  fortify  the  positions  that  I  have  taken  by  quoting  the 
authority  of  a  few  men  who  are  justly  regarded  as  teachers 
of  the  human  race.  If  I  keep  in  their  company,  I  cannot  wan- 
der far  from  the  truth.  I  cannot  greatly  err  while  I  am  guided 
by  their  counsel. 

In  his  eloquent  essay  entitled  "The  Ready  and  Easy  Way 
to  Establish  a  Free  Commonwealth,"  John  Milton  said:  **To 
make  the  people  fittest  to  choose,  and  the  chosen  fittest  to  gov- 
ern, will  be  to  mend  our  corrupt  and  faulty  education,  to  teach 
the  people  faith,  not  without  virtue,  temperance,  modesty,  so- 
briety, economy,  justice;  not  to  admire  wealth  or  honor;  to 
hate  turbulence  and  ambition ;  to  place  every  one  his  private 
welfare  and  happiness  in  the  public  peace,  liberty  and  safety."  ^ 

England's  most  venerable  living  statesman.  Lord  Brougham, 
enforced  the  same  truth  in  these  noble  words :  — 

**  Lawgivers  of  England  !  I  charge  ye  have  a  care  !  Be  well  assured 
that  the  contempt  lavished  for  centuries  upon  the  cabals  of  Constantino- 
ple, where  the  council  disputed  on  a  text  while  the  enemy,  the  derider  of 
all  their  texts,  was  thundering  at  the  gate,  will  be  as  a  token  of  respect 
compared  with  the  loud  shout  of  universal  scorn  which  all  mankind  in 
all  ages  will  send  up  against  you  if  you  stand  still  and  suffer  a  far  dead- 
lier foe  than  the  Turcoman,  —  suffer  the  parent  of  all  evil,  all  falsehood, 
all  hypocrisy,  all  discharity,  all  self-seeking,  —  him  who  covers  over  with 

^  Political  Economy,  Book  V.  Chap.  XI.  Sec.  8  (Boston,  1848). 

2  Prose  Works  of  John  Milton,  Vol.  II.  p.  183  (Philadelphia,  1851). 


138       THE  NATIONAL  B UREA  U  OF  ED UCATION 

pretexts  of  conscience  the  pitfalls  that  he  digs  for  the  souls  on  which  he 
preys,  —  to  stalk  about  the  fold,  and  lay  waste  its  inmates,  —  stand  still 
and  make  no  head  against  him,  upon  the  vain  pretext,  to  soothe  your  in- 
dolence, that  your  action  is  obstructed  by  religious  cabals,  —  upon  the 
far  more  guilty  speculation  that  by  playing  a  party  game,  you  can  turn 
the  hatred  of  conflicting  professors  to  your  selfish  purposes  1 "  ^ 

"  Let  the  soldier  be  abroad  if  he  will ;  he  can  do  nothing  in  this  age. 
There  is  another  personage  abroad,  a  person  less  imposing,  —  in  the  eye 
of  some,  insignificant.  The  schoolmaster  is  abroad  ;  and  I  trust  to  him, 
armed  with  his  primer,  against  the  soldier  in  full  uniform  array."  ^ 

Lord  Brougham  gloried  in  the  title  of  schoolmaster,  and  con- 
trasted his  work  with  that  of  the  military  conqueror  in  these 
words :  — 

"  The  conqueror  stalks  onward  with  '  the  pride,  pomp,  and  circum- 
stance of  war,'  banners  flying,  shouts  rending  the  air,  guns  thundering, 
and  martial  music  pealing,  to  drown  the  shrieks  of  the  wounded  and  the 
lamentations  for  the  slain.  Not  thus  the  schoolmaster  in  his  peaceful 
vocation.  He  meditates  and  prepares  in  secret  the  plans  which  are  to 
bless  mankind ;  he  slowly  gathers  around  him  those  who  are  to  further 
their  execution ;  he  quietly  though  firmly  advances  in  his  humble  path, 
laboring  steadily  but  calmly,  till  he  has  opened  to  the  light  all  the  recesses 
of  ignorance,  and  torn  up  by  the  roots  the  weeds  of  vice.  His  is  a 
progress  not  to  be  compared  with  anything  like  a  march  ;  but  it  leads  to 
a  far  more  brilliant  triumph,  and  to  laurels  more  imperishable  than  the 
destroyer  of  his  species,  the  scourge  of  the  world,  ever  won."  3 

The  learned  and  brilliant  Guizot,  who  regarded  his  work  in 
the  office  of  Minister  of  Public  Instruction,  in  the  government 
of  France,  the  noblest  and  most  valuable  work  of  his  life,  has 
left  us  this  valuable  testimony :  "  Universal  education  is  hence- 
forth one  of  the  guaranties  of  liberty  and  social  stability.  As 
every  principle  of  our  government  is  founded  on  justice  and 
reason,  to  diffuse  education  among  the  people,  to  develop  their 
understandings  and  enlighten  their  minds,  is  to  strengthen  their 
constitutional  government,  and  secure  its  stability." 

In  his  Farewell  Address,  Washington  wrote  these  words  of 
wise  counsel :  **  Promote  then,  as  an  object  of  primary  impor- 
tance, institutions  for  the  general  diffusion  of  knowledge.  In 
proportion  as  the  structure  of    a  government  gives    force   to 

1  I-«tter  on  "  National  Education,"  to  the  Duke  of  Bedford,  Sept.  6,  1839. 

2  Speech  in  the  House  of  Commons,  January  29, 1828. 
'  Address  at  Liverpool  Mechanics'  Institute,  July,  1835. 


THE  NATIONAL  B  UREA  U  OF  ED  UCA TION      1 39 

public  opinion,  it  is  essential  that  public  opinion  should  be  en- 
lightened." 

The  elder  Adams  said :  **  The  wisdom  and  generosity  of  the 
legislature,  in  making  liberal  appropriations  in  money  for  the 
benefit  of  schools,  academies,  and  colleges,  is  an  equal  honor 
to  them  and  to  their  constituents,  a  proof  of  their  venera- 
tion for  letters  and  science,  and  a  portent  of  great  and  lasting 
good  to  North  and  South  America  and  to  the  world.  Great  is 
truth,  —  great  is  liberty,  —  great  is  humanity,  —  and  they  must 
and  will  prevail." 

Chancellor  Kent  used  this  decided  language:  "The  parent 
who  sends  his  son  into  the  world  uneducated,  and  without  skill 
in  any  art  or  science,  does  a  great  injury  to  mankind  as  well  as 
to  his  own  family,  for  he  defrauds  the  community  of  a  useful 
citizen,  and  bequeaths  to  it  a  nuisance."  ^ 

I  shall  conclude  the  citation  of  opinions  with  these  stirring 
words  of  Edward  Everett :  — 

"  I  know  not  to  what  else  we  can  better  liken  the  strong  appetence 
of  the  mind  for  improvement,  than  to  a  hunger  and  tliirst  after  knowledge 
and  truth ;  nor  how  we  can  better  describe  the  province  of  education, 
than  to  say  it  does  that  for  the  intellect  which  is  done  for  the  body,  when 
it  receives  the  care  and  nourishment  which  are  necessary  for  its  growth 
and  strength.  From  this  comparison,  I  think  I  derive  new  views  of  the 
importance  of  education.  It  is  now  a  solemn  duty,  a  tender,  sacred 
trust.  What,  sir  !  feed  a  child's  body,  and  let  his  soul  hunger  !  pamper 
his  limbs,  and  starve  his  faculties  !  Plant  the  earth,  cover  a  thousand 
hills  with  your  droves  of  cattle,  pursue  the  fish  to  their  hiding-places  in 
the  sea,  and  spread  out  your  wheat-fields  across  the  plains,  in  order  to 
supply  the  wants  of  that  body  which  will  soon  be  as  cold  and  senseless 
as  their  poorest  clod,  and  let  the  pure  spiritual  essence  within  you,  with 
all  its  glorious  capacities  for  improvement,  languish  and  pine  !  What ! 
build  factories,  tum  in  rivers  upon  the  water-wheels,  unchain  the  impris- 
oned spirits  of  steam,  to  weave  a  garment  for  the  body,  and  let  the  soul 
remain  unadorned  and  naked  !  What !  send  out  your  vessels  to  the 
farthest  ocean,  and  make  battle  with  the  monsters  of  the  deep,  in  order 
to  obtain  the  means  of  lighting  up  your  dwellings  and  workshops,  and 
prolonging  the  hours  of  labor  for  the  meat  that  perisheth,  and  permit 
that  vital  spark  which  God  has  kindled,  which  he  has  intrusted  to  our 
care,  to  be  fanned  into  a  bright  and  heavenly  flame,  —  permit  it,  I  say, 
to  kmguish  and  go  out !  "  ^ 

*  Commentaries,  etc.,  Lecture  XXIX. 

2  Orations  and  Speeches  on  various  Occasions,  Vol.  II.  pp.  277,  278  (Boston, 
1856). 


I40      THE  NATIONAL  BUREAU  OF  EDUCATION 

It  is  remarkable  that  so  many  good  things  have  been  said, 
and  so  few  things  done,  by  our  national  statesmen,  in  favor  of 
education.  If  we  inquire  what  has  been  done  by  the  govern- 
ments of  other  countries  to  support  and  advance  public  edu- 
cation, we  are  compelled  to  confess  with  shame  that  ever>' 
government  in  Christendom  has  given  a  ♦more  intelligent  and 
effective  support  to  schools  than  has  our  own. 

The  free  cities  of  Germany  organized  the  earliest  school 
systems  after  the  separation  of  Church  and  State.  The  present 
schools  of  Hamburg  have  existed  more  than  one  thousand 
years.  The  earliest  school  codes  were  framed  in  the  duchy 
of  Wiirtemberg  in  1565,  and  in  the  electorate  of  Saxony  in 
1580.  Under  these  codes  were  established  systems  of  schools 
more  perfect,  it  is  claimed,  than  the  school  system  of  any  State 
of  the  American  Union.  Their  systems  embraced  the  gym- 
nasium and  the  university,  and  were  designed,  as  their  laws 
expressed  it,  "  to  carry  youth  from  the  elements  to  the  degree 
of  culture  demanded  for  offices  in  Church  and  State." 

The  educational  institutions  of  Prussia  are  too  well  known  to 
need  a  comment.  It  is  a  sufficient  index  of  their  progress  and 
high  character,  that  a  late  Prussian  school  officer  said  of  his 
official  duties:  '*  I  promised  God  that  I  would  look  upon  every 
Prussian  peasant  child  as  a  being  who  could  complain  of  me 
before  God  if  I  did  not  provide  for  him  the  best  education  as 
a  man  and  a  Christian  which  it  was  possible  for  me  to  provide." 

France  did  not  think  herself  dishonored  by  learning  from  a 
nation  which  she  had  lately  conquered;  and  when,  in  1831,  she 
began  to  provide  more  fully  for  the  education  of  her  people, 
she  sent  the  philosopher  Cousin  to  Holland  and  Prussia  to 
study  and  report  upon  the  schools  of  those  states.  Guizot  was 
made  Minister  of  Public  Instruction,  and  held  the  office  from 
1832  to  1837.  In  1833  the  report  of  Cousin  was  published,  and 
the  educational  system  of  France  was  established  on  the  Prus- 
sian model.  No  portion  of  his  brilliant  career  reflects  more 
honor  upon  Guizot  than  his  five  years'  work  for  the  schools  of 
France.  The  fruits  of  his  labors  were  not  lost  in  the  revolu- 
tions that  followed.  The  present  Emperor  is  giving  his  best 
efforts  to  the  perfection  and  maintenance  of  schools,  and  is 
endeavoring  to  make  the  profession  of  the  teacher  more  hon- 
orable and  desirable  than  it  has  been  hitherto. 

Through  the  courtesy  of  the  Secretary  of  State  I  have  ob- 
tained a  copy  of  the  last  annual  report  of  the  Minister  of  Public 


THE  NATIONAL  BUREAU  OF  EDUCATION      141 

Instruction  in  France,  which  exhibits  the  present  state  of  edu- 
cation in  that  empire.  At  the  last  enumeration  there  were  in 
France,  in  the  colleges  and  lyceums,  65,832  pupils;  in  the 
secondary  schools,  200,000;  and  in  the  primary,  or  common 
schools,  4,720,234.  Besides  the  large  amount  raised  by  local 
taxation,  the  imperial  government  appropriated,  during  the 
year  1865,  2,349.051  francs  for  the  support  of  primary  schools. 
Teaching  is  one  of  the  regular  professions  in  France ;  and  the 
government  offers  prizes,  and  bestows  honors  upon  the  success- 
ful instructor  of  children.  During  the  year  1865,  1,154  prizes 
were  distributed  to  teachers  in  primary  schools.  An  order  of 
honor,  and  a  medal  worth  two  hundred  and  fifty  francs,  are 
awarded  to  the  best  teacher  in  each  commune.  After  long  and 
faithful  service  in  his  profession,  the  teacher  is  retired  on  half- 
pay,  and,  if  broken  down  in  health,  is  pensioned  for  life.  In 
1865  there  were  4,245  teachers  on  the  pension  list  of  France. 
The  Minister  says  in  his  report,  "The  statesmen  of  France  have 
determined  to  show  that  the  country  knows  how  to  honor  those 
who  serve  her,  even  in  obscurity.**  Since  1862,  10,243  libraries 
for  the  use  of  common  schools  have  been  established ;  and  they 
now  contain  1,117,352  volumes,  more  than  a  third  of  which 
have  been  furnished  by  the  imperial  government.  Half  a  mil- 
lion text-books  are  furnished  for  the  use  of  children  who  are  too 
poor  to  buy  them.  It  is  the  policy  of  France  to  afford  the 
means  of  education  to  every  child  in  the  empire. 

When  we  compare  the  conduct  of  other  governments  with 
our  own,  we  cannot  accuse  ourselves  so  much  of  illiberality  as 
of  reckless  folly  in  the  application  of  our  liberality  to  the 
support  of  schools.  No  government  has  expended  so  much  to 
so  little  purpose.  To  fourteen  States  alone  we  have  given  for 
the  support  of  schools  83,000  square  miles  of  land,  or  an 
amount  of  territory  nearly  equal  to  two  such  States  as  Ohio. 
But  how  has  this  bountiful  appropriation  been  applied?  This 
chapter  in  our  history  has  never  been  written.  No  member  of 
this  House  or  the  Senate,  no  executive  officer  of  the  govern- 
ment, now  knows,  and  no  man  ever  did  know,  what  disposition 
has  been  made  of  this  immense  bounty.  This  bill  requires 
the  Commissioner  of  Education  to  report  to  Congress  what 
lands  have  been  given  to  schools,  and  how  the  proceeds  have 
been  applied.  If  we  arc  not  willing  to  follow  the  example  of 
our  fathers  in  giving,  let  us,  at  least,  have  the  evidence  of  the 
beneficial  results  of  their  liberality. 


142       THE  NATIONAL  BUREAU  OF  EDUCATION 

Mr.  Speaker,  I  have  thus  hurriedly  and  imperfectly  ex- 
hibited the  magnitude  of  the  interests  involved  in  the  education 
of  American  youth;  the  peculiar  condition  of  affairs  which 
demands  at  this  time  an  increase  of  our  educational  forces ;  the 
failure  of  a  majority  of  the  States  to  establish  school  systems, 
the  long  struggles  through  which  others  have  passed  in  achiev- 
ing success;  and  the  humiliating  contrast  between  the  action 
of  our  government  and  those  of  other  nations  in  reference  to 
education :  but  I  cannot  close  without  referring  to  the  bearing 
of  this  measure  upon  the  peculiar  work  of  this  Congress. 

When  the  history  of  the  Thirty-ninth  Congress  is  written,  it 
will  be  recorded  that  two  great  ideas  inspired  it,  and  made  their 
impress  upon  all  its  efforts;  namely,  to  build  up  free  States 
on  the  ruins  of  slavery,  and  to  extend  to  every  inhabitant  of 
the  United  States  the  rights  and  privileges  of  citizenship.  Be- 
fore the  Divine  Architect  builded  order  out  of  chaos,  he  said, 
"  Let  there  be  light."  Shall  we  commit  the  fatal  mistake  of 
building  up  free  States,  without  first  expelling  the  darkness  in 
which  slavery  had  shrouded  their  people?  Shall  we  enlarge 
the  boundaries  of  citizenship,  and  make  no  provision  to  in- 
crease the  intelligence  of  the  citizen?  I  share  most  fully  in 
the  aspirations  of  this  Congress,  and  give  my  most  cordial 
support  to  its  policy;  but  I  believe  its  work  will  prove  a 
disastrous  failure  unless  it  makes  the  schoolmaster  its  ally, 
and  aids  him  in  preparing  the  children  of  the  United  States  to 
perfect  the  work  now  begun. 

The  stork  is  a  sacred  bird  in  Holland,  and  is  protected  by 
her  laws,  because  it  destroys  those  animals  which  would  under- 
mine the  dikes,  and  let  the  sea  again  overwhelm  the  rich  fields 
of  the  Netherlands.  Shall  this  government  do  nothing  to  fos- 
ter and  strengthen  those  educational  agencies  which  alone  can 
shield  the  coming  generations  from  ignorance  and  vice,  and 
make  it  the  impregnable  bulwark  of  liberty  and  law? 

I  know  that  this  is  not  a  measure  which  is  likely  to  attract 
the  attention  of  those  whose  chief  work  it  is  to  watch  the  politi- 
cal movements  that  affect  the  results  of  nominating  conven- 
tions and  elections.  The  mere  politician  will  see  in  it  nothing 
valuable,  for  the  millions  of  children  to  be  benefited  by  it  can 
give  him  no  votes.  But  I  appeal  to  those  who  care  more  for 
the  future  safety  and  glory  of  this  nation  than  for  any  mere 
temporary  advantage,  to  aid  in  giving  to  education  the  public 
recognition  and  active  support  of  the  Federal  government. 


THE    JURISDICTION   OF   MILITARY 

COMMISSIONS. 

ARGUMENT  MADE   BEFORE   THE   SUPREME   COURT  OF  THE 

UNITED   STATES  IN  EX  PARTE  L.   P.   MILLIGAN, 

W.  A.  BOWLES,  AND  STEPHEN  HORSEY. 

March  6,  i866i 


The  efforts  made  by  the  government  to  suppress  the  Southern  Rebel- 
lion early  encountered  serious  opposition  in  some  of  the  loyal,  and  even 
in  Northern  States.  The  nature  and  the  extent  of  this  opposition  fills 
lai^e  space  in  the  history  of  the  time.  Sometimes  it  went  as  far  as  the 
charges  made  against  the  petitioners  in  the  cases  argued  by  Mr.  Garfield 
in  this  speech;  but  in  a  far  greater  number  of  instances  the  opposi- 
tion fen  short  of  the  crimes  therein  charged.  Unpatriotic  and  dis- 
loyal practices  became  so  numerous,  were  carried  to  such  an  extent,  so 
weakened  the  government,  and  so  disturbed  the  public  peace,  that  the 
national  authorities  felt  compelled  to  deal  with  their  perpetrators.  In 
that  day  of  excitement,  stress,  and  violence,  the  authorities  sometimes^ 
proceeded  to  extremities.  Commonly  these  extremer  measures  were  taken 
by  the  military  commanders  in  the  several  military  districts.  The  slow- 
going  processes  of  the  civil  courts,  it  was  held,  were  insufficient  to 
punish,  and  so  to  prevent  treason.  Hence  martial  law  sometimes  took 
the  place  of  civil  law,  and  military  commissions  the  place  of  civil  courts. 
The  MilUgan,  Bowles,  and  Horsey  cases  originated  in  an  attempt  to  sup- 
press alleged  treason.  Their  history,  to  the  time  when  they  appeared  in 
the  Supreme  Court  at  Washington,  is  given  by  Mr.  Garfield  in  the  first 
paragraphs  of  his  speech,  and  the  facts  need  not  be  here  recited.  The 
question  of  the  guilt  or  innocence  of  the  petitioners,  Milligan,  Bowles, 
and  Horsey,  was  not  in  issue  before  the  court,  but  solely  the  question 
of  the  legality  of  their  trial  and  condemnation  by  a  military  commission. 
More  specifically  it  was  this  :  Shall  a  writ  of  habeas  corpus  issue,  taking 
the  prisoners  out  of  the  custody  of  the  military  authorities?  The  peti- 
tion of  the  prisoners  was  granted.  This  is  the  order  of  the  court,  as  an- 
nounced by  Chief  Justice  Chase  ;  the  decision  was  given  the  next  term. 

"  I.  That  on  the  facts,  as  stated  in  said  petition  and  exhibits,  a  writ  of 
habeas  corpus  ought  to  be  issued,  according  to  the  prayer  of  said 
petition. 


144  MILITARY  COMMISSIONS. 

"  II.  That  on  the  facts  stated  in  the  said  petition  and  exhibits,  the 
said  Lambdin  P.  Milligan  ought  to  be  discharged  from  custody  as  in  said 
petition  is  prayed,  and  according  to  the  act  of  Congress,  passed  3d 
March,  1863,  entitled,  '  An  Act  relating  to  Habeas  Corpus ^  and  regulating 
Judicial  Proceedings  in  certain  Cases.' 

"III.  That,  on  the  facts  stated  in  said  petition  and  exhibits,  the  mili- 
tary commission  mentioned  therein  had  no  jurisdiction  legally  to  try  and 
sentence  said  Lambdin  P.  Milligan  in  the  manner  and  form  as  in  said 
petition  and  exhibits  are  stated. 

"  And  it  is  therefore  now  here  ordered  and  adjudged  by  this  court,  that 
it  be  so  certified  to  the  said  Circuit  Court.*' 

This  was  Mr.  Garfield's  first  appearance  in  the  Supreme  Court  of  the 
United  States.  He  was  associated  with  Hon.  J.  E.  McDonald,  Hon. 
J.  S.  Black,  and  Hon.  D.  D.  Field.  The  United  States  was  represented 
by  Hon.  James  Speed,  Attorney- General,  Hon.  B.  F.  Buder,  and  Hon. 
Henry  Stanberry. 

Mr.  Garfield's  appearance  in  these  cases  subjected  him  to  severe  crit- 
icism in  Ohio,  and  especially  in  his  own  district.  His  appearance  was 
held,  by  those  thus  criticising,  inconsistent  with  his  political  and  public 
character.  The  criticism  was  sharpened  by  the  popular  feeling  that  the 
prisoners  were  guilty  of  the  crimes  charged.  Replying  at  Warren,  Ohio, 
September  19,  1874,  to  certain  attacks  upon  his  public  character,  Mr. 
Garfield  thus  referred  to  his  connection  with  these  cases  :  — 

"Just  about  that  time  there  had  been  in  Congress  a  very  considerable 
discussion  concerning  the  arbitrary  conduct  of  some  of  our  officers  in 
carrying,  in  civil  communities,  the  military  jurisdiction  and  rule  further 
than  they  were  warranted  by  the  Constitution,  and  I  had  taken  strong 
grounds  in  Congress  against  the  exercise  of  military  power  in  States  not 
in  rebellion.  It  being  generally  known  that  I  had  resisted  what  some  of 
the  more  extreme  of  our  own  party  thought  the  military  authorities  might 
safely  do,  I  was  asked  if  I  would  be  willing  to  argue  the  case  of  Bowles 
and  Milligan  before  the  Supreme  Court.  I  answered,  *  If  the  case  turns 
on  the  justice  of  those  men  being  punished,  I  will  not  defend  them  in 
any  way  whatever,  for  I  believe  they  deserve  the  severest  punishment ; 
but  if  it  turns  on  the  question  as  to  who  has  the  power  to  try  those 
men,  I  will.  I  believe  that  there  is  no  authority  under  the  Constitu- 
tion and  laws  of  the  United  States  to  take  a  citizen  of  Indiana  not  a 
soldier  and  import  a  military  tribunal  to  his  home  to  try  him  and  pun- 
ish him.'  So  important  did  I  regard  this  principle  to  the  future  of  this 
country  in  that  exciting  time,  that,  with  my  eyes  open  to  the  fact  that  I 
took  a  ver)'  great  political  risk  in  defending,  not  Bowles  and  Milligan,  but 
the  right  of  every  citizen  in  a  civil  community  where  war  is  not  raging  to 
be  tried  by  the  courts  of  the  country  and  before  juries  of  his  own  land, 
and  not  to  be  dragged  away  outside  of  his  owti  doors  to  be  tried  by  a 


MILITARY  COMMISSIONS.  145 

military  organization  brought  from  a  distance,  I  made  the  argument  now 
complained  of-  I  believed  that,  having  put  down  the  Rebellion,  having 
saved  civil  liberty  in  this  country  against  cruel  invasion,  we  ought  also  to 
save  it  from  our  own  recklessness. 

"  I  happen  to  have  with  me  a  copy  of  the  argument  that  I  made  before 
the  Supreme  Court  in  the  year  1866;  and  I  desire  to  say  that  I  felt, 
when  I  made  that  argument,  that  I  was  doing  as  worthy  a  thing  as 
I  had  ever  done,  and  I  look  back  upon  it  to-night  with  as  much  sin- 
cere pride  and  satisfaction  as  upon  any  act  of  my  public  life.  I 
ought  to  add,  that  I  have  never  even  seen  Bowles  or  Milligan.  I  knew 
that  they  were  poor,  and  probably  could  not  pay  for  their  defence.  I 
was  never  promised  and  never  received  any  compensation  for  it.  I  paid 
the  expense  of  printing  my  own  brief  and  argument.  I  never  received 
any  compensation  for  it;  I  did  it  in  defence  of  what  I  believe  to 
be  a  most  vital  and  important  principle,  not  only  to  the  Republican 
party,  but  to  the  nation ;  namely,  that  in  no  part  of  our  civil  commu- 
nity must  the  military  be  exalted  above  the  civil  authority,  and  that 
those  men,  however  unworthy,  however  guilty,  and  however  disloyal  to 
their  country,  should  not  be  tried  by  any  but  a  lawful,  civil  tribunal. 
Congress  had  provided  laws  for  trying  every  crime  that  those  men  were 
charged  with,  and  for  trying  it  by  a  civil  court.  Now,  I  believe  that  all 
over  this  land  one  of  the  great  landmarks  of  civilization  and  civil  liberty 
is  the  self-restraining  power  of  the  American  people,  curbing  themselves 
and  governing  themselves  by  the  limit  of  the  civil  law.  I  remind  you  of 
the  fact  that  the  Supreme  Court  unanimously  sustained  the  position  I 
took  in  that  argument.  There  were  some  differences  as  to  the  reasoning 
by  which  the  court  reached  the  result ;  but  the  ruling  of  the  court  was 
unanimous,  that  the  trial  had  been  unauthorized  by  law,  and  that  the  men 
must  therefore  be  released.  That  did  not  release  them,  however,  from 
the  right  of  the  government  to  try  them  in  the  civil  courts  for  the  crimes 
with  which  they  were  charged.  A  note  that  was  handed  to  me  at  the 
door  called  upon  me  to  explain  how  it  was  that  I,  a  Republican  and  a 
Representative,  gave  my  voice  and  whatever  ability  I  possessed  as  a 
lawyer  to  save  Rebel  conspirators  from  punishment.  My  answer  was, 
*  Hang  them  if  guilty,  but  hang  them  according  to  law ;  if  you  hang 
them  otherwise,  you  commit  murder.'  " 


**  Nullus  liber  homo  capiatur,  vcl  imprisonctur,  aut  dissaisiatur,  aut  utlagetur,  aut  exulctur, 
aut  aliquo  modo  dcstruatur,  nee  super  eum  ibimus,  nee  super  eum  mittemus,  nisi  per  legale 
judicium  parium  suorum,  vel  per  legem  terra;."  —  Magna  Carta^  Cap.  XXXIX. 

MAY   IT  PLEASE  THE  CoURT,  —  In  the  months  of  Septem- 
ber and  October,   1864,  Lambdin  P.  Milligan,  William 

A.  Bowles,  and  Stephen   Horsey,  natives  of  the  United  States 
VOL  I.  10 


146  MILITARY  COMMISSIONS. 

and  citizens  of  the  State  of  Indiana,  were  arrested  by  order  of 
Alvin  P.  Hovey,  Major-General  commanding  the  military  dis- 
trict of  Indiana,  and  on  the  2ist  of  the  latter  month  were 
placed  on  trial  before  a  military  commission  convened  at  Indi- 
anapolis, by  order  of  General  Hovey,  on  the  following  charges, 
preferred  by  Major  Henry  L.  Burnett,  Judge  Advocate  of  the 
Northwestern  Military  Department,  viz. :  — 

1.  "Conspiracy  against  the  government  of  the  United  States." 

2.  "  Affording  aid  and  comfort  to  rebels  against  the  govern- 
ment of  the  United  States." 

3.  "  Inciting  insurrection." 

4.  **  Disloyal  practices." 

5.  "Violations  of  the  laws  of  war." 

The  Commission,  overruling  the  objection  of  the  accused 
against  its  authority  to  try  them,  proceeded  with  the  trial,  pro- 
nounced them  guilty,  and  sentenced  them  to  death  by  hanging. 
The  sentence  was  approved  on  the  2d  of  May,  1865  ;  but  before 
the  day  fixed  for  its  execution,  the  President  of  the  United 
States  commuted  it  to  imprisonment  for  life,  and  the  prisoners 
are  now  confined  in  the  penitentiary  of  Ohio. 

On  the  loth  of  the  same  month,  they  filed  their  petition  in 
the  Circuit  Court  of  the  United  States  for  the  District  of  In- 
diana, setting  forth  the  above  facts,  and  also  declaring,  that, 
while  the  petitioners  were  held  in  military  custody,  and  more 
than  twenty  days  after  their  arrest,  a  grand  jury  of  the  Circuit 
Court  of  the  United  States  for  the  District  of  Indiana  was  con- 
vened at  Indianapolis,  the  petitioners'  place  of  confinement,  and, 
being  duly  impanelled,  charged,  and  sworn  for  said  district, 
held  its  sittings,  and  finally  adjourned,  without  having  found 
any  bill  of  indictment,  or  made  any  presentment  whatever 
against  them;  that  at  no  time  had  they  been  in  the  military 
service  of  the  United  States,  or  in  any  way  connected  with  the 
land  or  naval  force,  or  the  militia  in  actual  service;  that  they 
had  not  been  within  the  limits  of  any  State  whose  citizens  were 
engaged  in  rebellion  against  the  United  States,  at  any  time 
during  the  war,  but  during  all  the  time  aforesaid,  and  for  twenty 
years  last  past,  had  been  inhabitants,  residents,  and  citizens  of 
Indiana.  The  petitioners*  claim  to  be  discharged  from  mili- 
tary custody  was  founded  upon  the  provisions  of  an  act  of  Con- 
gress of  March  3,  1863,  entitled  "An  Act  relative  to  Habeas 
Corpus,  and  regulating  Judicial  Proceedings  in  certain  Cases." 


MILITARY  COMMISSIONS.  147 

On  hearing  the  petition,  the  opinions  of  the  judges  of  the  Cir- 
cuit Court  were  opposed,  and  they  have  certified  to  this  court 
for  its  decisioii  the  following  questions,  viz. :  — 

1.  On  the  facts  stated  in  the  petition  and  exhibits,  ought  a 
writ  of  habeas  corpus  to  be  issued,  according  to  the  prayer  of 
said  petitioners? 

2.  On  the  facts  stated  in  the  petition  and  exhibits,  ought  the 
petitioners  to  be  discharged  from  custody,  as  in  said  petition 
prayed  ? 

3.  Whether,  upon  the  facts  stated  in  said  petition  and  exhib- 
its, the  military  Commission  mentioned  therein  had  jurisdiction 
legally  to  try  and  sentence  said  petitioners  in  manner  and  form 
as  in  said  petition  and  exhibits  is  stated. 

These  preliminary  proceedings  have  been  so  fully  stated  and 
examined  by  the  gentleman  who  opened  the  cause,^  that  I  need 
not  dwell  upon  them  further. 

I  desire  to  say,  in  the  outset,  that  the  questions  now  before 
this  court  have  relation  only  to  constitutional  law,  and  involve 
neither  the  guilt  or  the  innocence  of  the  relators,  nor  the  mo- 
tives and  patriotism  of  the  officers  who  tried  and  sentenced 
them.  I  trust  I  need  not  say  in  this  presence,  that  in  my  esti- 
mation nothing  in  the  calendar  of  infamy  can  be  more  abhor- 
rent than  the  crimes  with  which  the  relators  were  charged; 
nothing  that  more  fully  deserves  the  swift  vengeance  of  the 
law,  and  the  execration  of  mankind.  But  the  questions  before 
your  Honors  are  not  personal.  They  reach  those  deep  foun- 
dations of  law  on  which  the  republic  is  built;  and  in  their 
proper  settlement  are  involved  the  highest  interests  of  every 
citizen. 

Had  the  military  Commission  jurisdiction  legally  to  try  and 
sentence  the  petitioners?  Upon  the  determination  of  this  ques- 
tion the  whole  cause  rests.  If  the  Commission  had  such  juris- 
diction, the  petitioners  are  legally  imprisoned,  and  should  not 
be  discharged  from  custody ;  nor  should  a  writ  of  habeas  corpus 
be  issued  in  answer  to  their  prayer.  If  the  military  Commis- 
sion had  not  jurisdiction,  the  trial  was  void,  the  sentence  illegal, 
•and  should  not  be  further  executed. 

As  a  first  step  toward  reaching  an  answer  to  this  question, 
I  affirm  that  every  citizen  of  the  United  States  is  under  the 
dominion  of  law ;  that,  whether  he  be  a  civilian,  a  soldier,  or  a 

1   Hon.  J.  E.  McDonald. 


148  MILITARY  COMMISSIONS. 

sailor,  the  Constitution  provides  for  him  a  tribunal  before  which 
he  may  be  protected  if  innocent,  and  punished  if  guilty  of 
crime.  In  the  fifth  article  of  the  Amendments  td  the  Constitu- 
tion it  is  declared  that — 

"  No  person  shall  be  held  to  answer  for  a  capital  or  otherwise  infa- 
mous crime,  unless  on  a  presentment  or  indictment  of  a  grand  jury, 
except  in  cases  arising  in  the  land  or  naval  forces,  or  in  the  militia  when 
in  actual  service  in  time  of  war  or  public  danger ;  nor  shall  any  person 
be  subject  for  the  same  offence  to  be  twice  put  in  jeopardy  of  life  or 
limb;  nor  shall  be  compelled,  in  any  criminal  case,  to  be  a  witness 
against  himself;  nor  be  deprived  of  life,  liberty,  or  property  without  due 
process  of  law ;  nor  shall  private  property  be  taken  for  public  use  with- 
out just  compensation." 

This  sweeping  provision  covers  every  person  under  the  juris- 
diction of  the  Constitution.  To  the  general  rule  of  presentment 
or  indictment  of  a  grand  jury,  there  are  three  exceptions: 
first,  cases  arising  in  the  land  forces ;  second,  cases  arising  in 
the  naval  forces ;  third,  cases  arising  in  the  militia  when  in 
actual  service  in  time  of  war  or  public  danger.  All  these 
classes  are  covered  by  express  provisions  of  the  Constitution. 
In  whatever  one  of  these  situations  an  American  citizen  may 
be  placed,  his  rights  are  clearly  defined,  and  a  remedy  is 
provided  against  oppression  and  injustice.  The  Constitution 
establishes  the  Supreme  Court,  and  empowers  Congress  to  con- 
stitute tribunals  inferior  to  that  court;  **to  make  rules  for  the 
government  and  regulation  of  the  land  and  naval  forces,"  and 
to  provide  for  governing  such  part  of  the  militia  as  may  be 
employed  in  the  service  of  the  United  States.  No  other  tri- 
bunal is  authorized  or  recognized  by  the  Constitution.  No 
other  is  established  by  the  laws  of  Congress.  For  all  cases 
not  arising  in  the  land  or  naval  forces.  Congress  has  amply 
provided  in  the  Judiciary  Act  of  September  24,  1789,  and  the 
acts  amendatory  thereof.  For  all  cases  arising  in  the  naval 
forces,  it  has  fully  provided  in  the  act  of  March  2,  1799,  **for 
the  Government  of  the  Navy  of  the  United  States,"  and  in  sim- 
ilar subsequent  acts. 

But  since  the  opposing  counsel  do  not  claim  to  find  authority 
for  the  tribunal  before  which  the  petitioners  were  tried  in  cither 
of  these  categories,  I  shall  proceed  to  examine,  somewhat  mi- 
nutely, the  limits  and  boundaries  of  the  military  department ; 
the  character  of  its  tribunals ;  the  classes  of  persons  who  come 


MILITARY  COMMISSIONS.  149 

within  its  jurisdiction;    and  the  defences  which   the   law  has 
thrown  around  them. 

We  are  apt  to  regard  the  military  department  of  the  govern- 
ment as  an  organized  despotism,  in  which  all  personal  rights 
are  merged  in  the  will  of  the  commander-in-chief.  But  that 
department  has  definitely  marked  boundaries,  and  all  its  mem- 
bers are  not  only  controlled,  but  also  sacredly  protected,  by 
definitely  prescribed  law.  The  first  law  of  the  Revolutionary 
Congfress  touching  the  organization  of  the  army,  passed  Sep- 
tember 20,  1776,  provided  that  no  officer  or  soldier  should  be 
kept  in  arrest  more  than  eight  days  without  being  furnished 
with  the  written  charges  and  specifications  against  him ;  that  he 
should  be  tried,  at  as  early  a  day  as  possible,  by  a  regular  mili- 
tary court,  whose  proceedings  were  regulated  by  law,  and  that  no 
sentence  should  be  carried  into  execution  until  the  full  record  of 
the  trial  had  been  submitted  to  Congress  or  to  the  commander- 
in-chief,  and  his  or  their  direction  be  signified  thereon.  From 
year  to  year  Congress  has  added  new  safeguards  to  protect  the 
rights  of  our  soldiers,  and  the  Rules  and  Articles  of  War  are  as 
really  a  part  of  the  laws  of  the  land  as  the  Judiciary  Act  or  the 
act  establishing  the  Treasury  Department.  If  the  humblest  pri- 
vate soldier  in  the  army  be  wronged  by  his  commanding  officer, 
he  may  demand  redress  by  sending  the  statement  of  his  griev- 
ance step  by  step  through  the  appointed  channels,  till  it  reaches 
the  President  or  Congress,  if  justice  be  not  done  him  sooner. 

The  main  boundary  line  between  the  civil  and  military  juris- 
dictions is  the  muster  into  service.  Before  that  act  the  citi- 
zen is  subject  to  the  jurisdiction  of  the  civil  courts ;  after  it, 
until  his  muster  out,  he  is  subject  to  the  military  jurisdiction  in 
all  matters  of  military  duty.  This  line  has  been  carefully  sur- 
veyed by  the  courts,  and  fixed  as  the  lawful  boundary.  They 
do  not  regard  a  citizen  as  coming  under  the  jurisdiction  of  a 
Federal  court-martial,  even  when  he  has  been  ordered  into  the 
military  service  by  the  Governor  of  his  State,  on  requisition  of 
the  President,  until  he  reaches  the  place  of  general  rendezvous, 
and  has  been  actually  mustered  into  the  service  of  the  United 
States.  On  this  point  I  cite  the  case  of  Mills  v,  Martin.^  In 
that  case,  a  militiaman,  called  out  by  the  Governor  of  the  State 
of  New  York,  and  ordered  by  him  to  enter  the  service  of  the 
United  States,  on  a  requisition  of  the  President  for  troops,  re- 

1  19  Johnson's  N.  Y.  Reports,  6. 


1 50  MILITAR  Y  COMMISSIONS. 

fused  to  obey  the  summons,  and  was  tried  by  a  Federal  court- 
martial  for  disobedience  of  orders.  The  Supreme  Court  of  the 
State  of  New  York  decided  that,  until  he  had  gone  to  the  place 
of  general  rendezvous,  and  had  been  regularly  enrolled,  and 
mustered  into  the  national  militia,  he  was  not  amenable  to  the 
action  of  a  court-martial  composed  of  officers  of  the  United 
States.  The  judge,  in  giving  his  opinion,  quoted  the  following 
language  of  Mr.  Justice  Washington,  of  the  Supreme  Court  of 
the  United  States,  in  the  case  of  Houston  v,  Moore :  **  From 
this  brief  summary  of  the  laws,  it  would  seem  that  actual  service 
was  considered  by  Congress  as  the  criterion  of  national  militia ; 
and  that  the  service  did  not  commence  until  the  arrival  of  the 
militia  at  the  place  of  rendezvous.  That  is  the  termimis  a  quo 
the  service,  the  pay,  and  subjection  to  the  articles  of  war,  are 
to  commence  and  continue.*'  ^ 

By  the  sixtieth  Article  of  War,  the  military  jurisdiction  is  so 
extended  as  to  cover  those  persons  not  mustered  into  the  ser- 
vice, but  necessarily  connected  with  the  army.  It  provides  that 
"  All  sutlers  and  retainers  to  the  camp,  and  all  persons  whatso- 
ever serving  with  the  armies  of  the  United  States  in  the  field, 
though  not  enlisted  soldiers,  are  to  be  subject  to  orders,  accord- 
ing to  the  Rules  and  Articles  of  War."  ^ 

That  the  question  of  jurisdiction  might  not  be  doubtful,  it 
was  thought  necessary  to  provide  by  law  of  Congress  that  spies 
should  be  subject  to  trial  by  court-martial.  As  the  law  stood 
for  eighty-five  years,  spies  were  described  as  **  persons  not  citi- 
zens of,  or  owning  allegiance  to,  the  United  States,  who  shall  be 
found  lurking,"  etc.  Not  until  after  the  great  Rebellion  began 
was  this  law  so  amended  as  to  allow  the  punishment  by  court- 
martial  of  citizens  of  the  United  States  who  should  be  found 
lurking  about  the  lines  of  our  army  to  betray  it  to  the  enemy ; 
for  until  then,  be  it  said  to  the  honor  of  our  people,  it  had 
never  been  thought  possible  that  any  American  citizen  would 
become  a  spy,  to  aid  the  enemies  of  the  Republic ;  but  in  1 862 
the  law  was  so  amended  that  such  a  citizen,  if  found  lurking 
about  the  lines  of  the  army  as  a  spy,  in  time  of  war,  should  be 
tried  by  a  court-martial  as  though  he  were  a  spy  of  a  foreign 
nation. 

It  is  evident,  therefore,  that  by  no  loose  and  general  construc- 
tion of  the  law  can  citizens  be  held  amenable  to  military  tribu- 

1  5  Wheat  on,  20.  "  Army  Regulations,  1 861. 


MILITAR  Y  COMMISSIONS.  1 5 1 

nals,  whose  jurisdiction  extends  only  to  persons  mustered  into 
the  military  service,  and  such  other  classes  of  persons  as  are, 
by  express  provisions  of  law,  made  subject  to  the  rules  and  arti- 
cles of  war. 

But  even  within  their  proper  jurisdiction  military  courts  are, 
in  many  important  particulars,  subordinate  to  the  civil  courts. 
This  is  acknowledged  by  the  leading  authorities  on  this  subject. 
I  read  from  O'Brien's  Military  Law.  After  discussing  the  gen- 
eral relations  between  the  civil  and  military  departments  of  the 
government,  he  says :  — 

"  From  this  admitted  principle,  it  would  seem  a  necessary  consequence 
that  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States  has  an  inherent  power  over 
all  military  tribunals,  of  precisely  the  same  nature  as  that  which  it  asserts 
and  exercises  over  inferior  courts  of  civil  judicature.  Any  mandatory 
or  prohibitory  writ,  therefore,  emanating  from  the  Supreme  Court  of  the 
United  States,  and  addressed  to  a  court-martial,  would  demand  the  most 
unhesitating  obedience  on  the  part  of  the  latter.  Whether,  in  the  ab- 
sence of  a  special  law  to  that  effect,  the  same  obedience  is  due  to  a  writ 
coming  from  a  Circuit  or  District  Court  of  the  Union,  and  directed  to 
a  court-martial  assembled  in  the  district  or  circuit,  does  not  appear  to  be 
so  clear.  A  military  tribunal  would  doubtless  obey  such  a  writ.  As  to 
State  courts,  the  case  is  very  different.  Military  courts  are  entirely  inde- 
pendent of  them.  Their  powers  are  derived  from  a  distinct,  separate,  and 
independent  source.     In  regard  to  the  courts  of  the  United  States,  there 

can  be  no  question Each  individual  member  of  a  court-martial 

is  also  liable  to  the  supreme  courts  of  civil  judicature,  not  only  for  any 
abuse  of  power,  but  for  any  illegal  proceedings  of  the  court,  if  he  has 

voted  for  or  participated  in  the  same 

"  The  authority  of  courts- martial  is  sometimes  extended  by  executive 
governments,  subjecting,  by  proclamation,  certain  districts  or  countries 
to  the  jurisdiction  of  martial  law  during  the  existence  of  a  rebellion. 
But  in  all  such  cases  a  court-martial  ought  to  be  fully  assured  that  the 
warrant  or  order  under  which  they  are  assembled  is  strictly  legal ;  and  that 
the  prisoners  brought  before  them  were  actually  apprehended  in  the  par- 
ticular district  or  country  which  may  have  been  subjected  to  martial  law, 
and  during  the  period  that  the  proclamation  was  actually  in  force.  Any 
error  in  these  particulars  would  render  their  whole  proceedings  illegal."  * 

In  further  vindication  of  my  last  proposition,  I  shall  cite  a 
few  precedents  from  English  and  American  history. 

I.  A  Lieutenant  Fr>'e.  serving  in  the  West  Indies  in  1743  on 
board  the  Oxford,  a  British  man-of-war,  was  ordered  by  his 

*  Pages  222-226  (Philadelphia,  1846). 


I S  2  MTLITAR  Y  COMMISSIONS. 

I 

superior  officer  to  assist  in  arresting  another  officer  and  bringing 
him  on  board  the  ship  as  a  prisoner.  The  Lieutenant,  doubting 
the  legality  of  the  order,  demanded — what  he  had,  according  to 
the  customs  of  the  naval  service,  a  right  to  demand — a  written 
order  before  he  would  obey  the  command.  For  this  he  was 
put  under  arrest,  tried  by  a  naval  court-martial,  sentenced  to 
fifteen  years'  imprisonment,  and  forever  debarred  from  serving 
the  King.  He  was  sent  to  England  to  be  imprisoned,  but  was 
released  by  order  of  the  Privy  Council.  In  1746  he  brought 
an  action  before  a  civil  court  against  the  president  of  the  court- 
martial,  Sir  Chaloner  Ogle,  and  damages  of  ;^i,ooo  were  awarded 
him  for  his  illegal  detention  and  sentence ;  and  the  learned  judge 
informed  him  that  he  might  also  bring  his  action  against  any 
member  of  the  court-martial.  Rear- Admiral  Mayne  and  Captain 
Rentone,  who  were  members  of  the  court  that  tried  him,  were, 
at  the  time  when  damages  were  awarded  to  Lieutenant  Frye,  sit- 
ting on  a  naval  court-martial  for  the  trial  of  Vice- Admiral  Les- 
tock.  The  Lieutenant  proceeded  against  them,  and  they  were 
arrested  upon  a  writ  from  the  Court  of  Common  Pleas.  The 
order  of  arrest  was  served  upon  them  just  as  the  court-martial 
adjourned,  one  afternoon.  Its  members,  fifteen  in  number,  im- 
mediately reassembled  and  passed  resolutions  declaring  it  a  great 
insult  to  the  dignity  of  the  naval  service  that  any  person,  how- 
ever high  in  civil  authority,  should  order  the  arrest  of  a  naval 
officer  for  any  of  his  official  acts.  The  Lord  Chief  Justice,  Sir 
John  Willes,  immediately  ordered  the  arrest  of  all  the  members 
of  the  court  who  signed  the  resolutions,  and  they  were  arrested. 
They  appealed  to  the  King,  who  was  very  indignant  at  the  ar- 
rest. The  judge,  however,  persevered  in  his  determination  to 
maintain  the  supremacy  of  the  civil  law,  and  after  two  months' 
examination  and  investigation  of  the  cause  all  the  members  of 
the  court-martial  signed  an  humble  and  submissive  letter  of 
apology,  begging  leave  to  withdraw  their  resolutions,  in  order 
to  put  an  end  to  further  proceedings.  When  the  Lord  Chief 
Justice  had  heard  the  letter  read  in  open  court,  he  directed  that  it 
be  recorded  in  the  Remembrance  Office,  **  as  a  memorial  to  the 
present  and  future  ages,  that  whoever  set  themselves  up  in  op- 
position to  the  laws,  or  think  themselves  above  the  law,  will  in 
the  end  find  themselves  mistaken."  ^ 

1  See  Mc Arthur  on  Courts-Martial,  (London,  1806,)  Vol.  1.  pp.  229-232.     See 
also  Ix)ndon  Gazette  for  1745-46,  Library  of  Congress. 


MILITAR  Y  COMMISSIONS.  1 5  3 

2.  I  beg  leave  to  cite  the  case  of  Wilson  v,  MacKenzie.  This 
court  will  remember  the  remarkable  mutiny,  in  1842,  on  board 
the  brig  Somers,  in  which  a  son  of  the  then  Secretary  of  the 
Treasury  of  the  United  States  was  tried  by  court-martial  for 
mutiny,  and  executed  at  the  yard-arm.  It  was  proved  that  a 
mutiny  of  very  threatening  aspect  had  broken  out,  and  that  the 
lives  of  the  captain  and  his  officers  were  threatened  by  the 
mutineers.  Among  the  persons  arrested  was  the  plaintiff,  Wil- 
son, an  enlisted  sailor,  who,  being  supposed  to  be  in  the  con- 
spiracy, was  knocked  down  by  the  captain,  ironed,  and  held  in 
confinement  for  a  number  of  days.  When  the  cruise  was  ended, 
Wilson  brought  suit  against  the  captain  for  illegal  arrest  and 
imprisonment.  The  cause  was  tried  before  the  Supreme  Court 
of  New  York,  and  his  Honor,  Chief  Justice  Nelson,  delivered 
the  opinion  of  the  court.     He  says :  — 

"  The  material  question  presented  in  this  case  is,  whether  the  com- 
mon law  courts  have  any  jurisdiction  of  personal  wrongs  committed  by  a 
superior  officer  of  the  navy  upon  a  subordinate,  while  at  sea,  and  engaged 
in  the  public  service Actions  of  trespass  for  injuries  to  the  per- 
son have  been  frequently  brought  and  sustained  in  the  common  law 
courts  of  England,  against  naval  as  well  as  military  commanders,  by  their 
subordinates,  for  acts  done  both  at  home  and  abroad,  under  pretence 
and  color  of  naval  and  military  discipline.  (See  Wall  v,  McNamara,  and 
Swinton  v.  Molloy,  stated  in  i  T.  R.  536,  537  ;  also,  Mostyn  v.  Fabrigas, 
Cowp.  161 ;  Warden  v.  Bailey,  4  Taunt.  67  ;  4  Maule  &  Selw.  400,  S.  C.) 
....  There  are  are  also  many  cases  in  the  books  where  actions  have 
been  sustained  against  members  of  courts-martial,  naval  and  military,  who 
have  exceeded  their  authority  in  the  infliction  of  punishment.  (See 
4  Taunt.  70-75,  and  the  cases  there  cited.)  ....  It  was  suggested  on 
the  argument,  by  the  counsel  for  the  defendant,  that,  inasmuch  as  he 
[\Vilson]  was  in  the  service  of  the  United  States  when  the  acts  com- 
plained of  were  done,  the  courts  of  this  State,  as  matter  of  comity  and 

policy,  should  decline  to  take  jurisdiction I  am  of  opinion  that 

the  demurrer  [to  the  suggestion]  is  well  taken,  and  that  the  plaintiff 
[Wilson]  is  entitled  to  judgment.     Ordered  accordingly."  ^ 

3.  As  a  clear  and  exhaustive  statement  of  the  relation  be- 
tween civil  and  military  courts,  I  quote  from  an  opinion  of  this 
court  in  the  case  of  Dynes  v.  Hoover^:  — 

"  With  the  sentences  of  courts- martial  which  have  been  convened 
regularly,  and  have  proceeded  legally,  and  by  which  punishments  are 
directed,  not  forbidden  by  law,  or  which  are  according  to  the  laws  and 

1  7  HiU's  N.  Y.  Supreme  Court  Reports,  97-100.  ^  20  Howard,  82,  Sj. 


1 54  MILITAR  Y  COMMISSIONS. 

customs  of  the  sea,  civil  courts  have  nothing  to  do,  nor  are  they  in  any 
way  alterable  by  them.  If  it  were  otherwise,  the  civil  courts  would  vir- 
tually administer  the  Rules  and  Articles  of  War,  irrespective  of  those  to 
whom  that  duty  and  obligation  has  been  confided  by  the  laws  of  the 
United  States,  from  whose  decisions  no  appeal  or  jurisdiction  of  any  kind 
has  been  given  to  the  civil  magistrate  or  civil  courts.  But  we  repeat,  if 
a  court-martial  has  no  jurisdiction  over  the  subject-matter  of  the  charge  it 
has  been  convened  to  try,  or  shall  inflict  a  punishment  forbidden  by  the 
laWy  though  its  sentence  shall  be  approved  by  the  officers  having  a  re- 
visory power  of  it,  civil  courts  may,  on  an  action  by  a  party  aggrieved  by 
it,  inquire  into  the  want  of  the  court's  jurisdiction,  and  give  him  redress. 
(Harman  v,  Tappenden,  i  East,  555  ;  as  to  ministerial  officers,  Mar- 
shall's Case,  10  Cr.  76 ;  Moravia  v,  Sloper,  Willes,  30 ;  Parton  v,  Wil- 
liams, 3  B.  &  A.  330 ;  and  as  to  justices  of  the  peace,  by  Lord  Tenterden, 
in  Basten  v,  Carew,  3  B.  &  C.  653 ;  Mills  v,  Collett,  6  Bing.  85.) 

"  Such  is  the  law  of  England.  By  the  Mutiny  Acts,  courts-martial 
have  been  created  with  authority  to  try  those  who  are  a  part  of  the  army 
or  navy  for  breaches  of  military  or  naval  duty.  It  has  been  repeatedly 
determined  that  the  sentences  of  those  courts  are  conclusive  in  any  action 
brought  in  the  courts  of  common  law.  But  the  courts  of  common  law 
will  examine  whether  courts-martial  have  exceeded  the  jurisdiction  given 
them,  though  it  is  said,  '  not,  however,  after  the  sentence  has  been  rati- 
fied and  carried  into  execution.'  (Grant  ?'.  Gould,  2  H.  Black.  69  ; 
Ship  Bounty,  i  East,  313  ;  Shalford's  case,  i  East,  313  ;  Mann  v,  Owen, 
9  B.  &  C.  595  ;  In  the  Matter  of  Poe,  5  B.  &  A.  681,  on  a  motion  for  a 
prohibition.)" 

I  hold  it  therefore  established,  that  the  Supreme  Court  of 
the  United  States  may  inquire  into  the  question  of  jurisdiction 
of  a  military  court;  may  take  cognizance  of  extraordinary  pun- 
ishment inflicted  by  such  a  court  not  warranted  by  law,  and 
may  issue  writs  of  prohibition,  or  give  such  other  redress  as 
the  case  may  require.  It  is  also  clear  that  the  Constitution  and 
laws  of  the  United  States  have  carefully  provided  for  the  pro- 
tection of  individual  liberty,  and  the  right  of  accused  persons 
to  a  speedy  trial  before  a  tribunal  established  and  regulated 
by  law. 

The  petitioners  must,  as  I  have  already  shown,  be  placed  in 
one  of  four  categories.  First,  they  were  either  in  the  naval 
service ;  or,  second,  in  the  military  service ;  or,  third,  belonged 
to  the  militia,  and  were  called  out  to  serve  by  order  of  the  Pres- 
ident in  the  national  militia;  or,  fourth,  if  neither  of  these  three, 
nor  so  connected  with  them  as  to  be  placed  by  law  under  the 


MILITAR  Y  COMMISSIONS.  1 5  5 

naval  or  military  jurisdiction,  then  they  were  simply  civilians, 
and  subject  exclusively  to  the  jurisdiction  of  the  civil  courts. 
It  is  set  forth  in  the  petition,  and  not  denied  by  the  opposing 
counsel,  that  they  were  in  neither  of  the  first  three  classes,  nor 
connected  with  them.  They  must,  therefore,  belong  to  the 
fourth  class,  —  unless  a  fifth  should  be  added,  as  the  learned 
counsel  on  the  other  side  have  suggested,  and  it  be  held  that 
they  were  prisoners  of  war ;  but  of  that  I  shall  speak  hereafter. 
Under  such  circumstances,  it  is  not  surprising  that  the  learned 
counsel  should  go  beyond  the  Constitution,  beyond  the  civil,  the 
naval,  and  even  the  military  law,  to  find  a  basis  on  which  they 
may  rest  the  jurisdiction  of  the  tribunal  before  which  the  peti- 
tioners were  tried.  They  tell  us  frankly  that  they  do  not  find  its 
justification  either  in  the  civil  or  military  laws  of  the  land. 

The  Honorable  Attorney-General  and  his  distinguished  col- 
league* declare  in  their  printed  brief,  that, — 

I.  "  A  military  commission  derives  its  powers  and  authority 
wholly  from  martial  law ;  and  by  that  law  and  by  military  au- 
thority only  are  its  proceedings  to  be  judged  or  reviewed." 

II.  "  Martial  law  is  the  will  of  the  commanding  officer  of  an 
armed  force,  or  of  a  geographical  military  department,  ex- 
pressed in  time  of  war,  within  the  limits  of  his  military  jurisdic- 
tion, as  necessity  demands  and  prudence  dictates,  restrained  or 
enlarged  by  the  orders  of  his  military  chief  or  supreme  ex- 
ecutive ruler,'*  and  "  the  officer  executing  martial  law  is  at  the 
same  time  supreme  legislator,  supreme  judge,  and  supreme 
executive." 

To  give  any  color  of  plausibility  to  these  novel  propositions, 
they  were  compelled  not  only  to  ignore  the  Constitution,  but  to 
declare  it  suspended,  its  voice  drowned  in  the  thunders  of  war. 
Accordingly,  with  consistent  boldness,  they  declare  that  the 
third,  fourth,  and  fifth  articles  of  Amendments  '*  are  all  peace 
provisions  of  the  Constitution,  and,  like  all  other  conventional 
and  legislative  laws  and  enactments,  are  silent  inter  armUy  when 
salus  populi  suprana  est  lex"  Applying  these  doctrines  to  this 
cause,  they  hold  that  from  the  5  th  of  October,  1864,  to  the 
9th  of  May,  1865,  martial  law  alone  existed  in  Indiana;  that  it 
silenced  not  only  the  civil  courts,  but  all  the  laws  of  the  land, 
and  even  the  Constitution  itself;  and  during  that  silence  the 
executor  of  martial  law  could  lay  his  hand  upon  every  citizen, 

»  Hon.  R  F.  Duller. 


IS6  MILITARY  COMMISSIONS. 

could  not  only  suspend  the  writ  of  habeas  corpus^  but  could 
create  a  court  which  should  have  the  exclusive  jurisdiction  over 
the  citizen  to  try  him,  sentence  him,  and  put  him  to  death. 

We  have  already  seen  that  the  Congress  of  the  United  States 
raises  and  supports  armies,  provides  and  maintains  navies,  and 
makes  the  rules  and  regulations  for  the  government  of  both ; 
but  it  would  appear  from  the  teachings  of  the  learned  counsel 
on  the  other  side,  that  when  Congress  has  done  all  these  things, 
— when,  in  the  name  of  the  republic,  and  in  order  to  put  down 
rebellion  and  restore  the  supremacy  of  law,  it  has  created  the 
grandest  army  that  ever  fought,  —  the  power  thus  created  rises 
aboye  its  source  and  destroys  both  the  law  and  its  creator.  They 
would  have  us  believe  that  the  government  of  the  United  States 
has  evoked  a  spirit  which  it  cannot  lay,  — has  calkd  into  being 
a  power  which  at  once  destroyed  and  superseded  its  author, 
and  rode,  in  uncontrolled  triumph,  over  citizen  and  court.  Con- 
gress and  Constitution.  All  this  mockery  is  uttered  before  this 
august  court,  whose  every  member  is  sworn  to  administer  the 
law  in  accordance  with  the  Constitution.  This  monstrous  as- 
sumption I  shall  now  proceed  to  examine. 

And  now  what  is  martial  law?  It  is  a  new  term  to  American 
jurisprudence ;  and  I  congratulate  this  court  that  never  before 
in  the  long  history  of  this  republic  has  that  word  rung  out  its 
lawless  echoes  in  this  sacred  chamber. 

Mr.  Butler.  Did  not  the  decision  in  the  case  of  Luther  v,  Borden 
have  something  to  do  with  martial  law  ? 

It  was  not  the  subject  decided  by  the  court,  and  only  remote- 
ly analogous  to  this  case.  The  claim  to  exercise  martial  law  in 
that  case  was  under  the  old  charter  of  Charles  II.  in  Rhode 
Island,  and  not  under  the  Constitution. 

I.  Sir  Matthew  Hale,  in  his  History  of  the  Common  Law, 
says :  — 

"  Touching  the  business  of  martial  law,  these  things  are  to  be  ob- 
served, viz. :  — 

"  First.  That  in  truth  and  reality  it  is  not  a  law,  but  something  in- 
dulged rather  than  allowed  as  a  law.  The  necessity  of  government, 
order,  and  discipline  in  an  army  is  that  only  which  can  give  those 
laws  a  countenance ;  —  quod  enim  necessitas  cogit  defendi, 

"  Secondly.  This  indulged  law  was  only  to  extend  to  members  of  the 
army,  or  to  those  of  the  opposite  army,  and  never  was  so  much  indulged 
as  intended  to  be  executed  or  exercised  upon  others.    For  others  who 


MILITARY  COMMISSIONS.  IS7 

were  not  listed  under  the  army  had  no  color  or  reason  to  be  bound  by 
military  constitutions  applicable  only  to  the  army,  whereof  they  were  not 
parts.  But  they  were  to  be  ordered  and  governed  according  to  the  laws 
to  which  they  were  subject,  though  it  were  a  time  of  war. 

"  Thirdly.  That  the  exercise  of  martial  law,  whereby  any  person  should 
lose  his  life,  or  member,  or  liberty,  may  not  be  permitted  in  time  of  peace, 
when  the  King's  courts  are  open  for  all  persons  to  receive  justice  accord- 
ing to  the  laws  of  the  land.  This  is  in  substance  declared  in  the  Petition 
of  Right,  3  Car.  i,  whereby  such  commissions  and  martial  law  were  re- 
pealed and  declared  to  be  contrary  to  law."  ^ 

2.  Blackstone  quotes  the  above  approvingly,  and  still  further 
enforces  the  same  doctrine.^ 

3.  Wharton,  in  his  Law  Lexicon,  says:  "Martial  law  is  that 
rule  of  action  which  is  imposed  by  the  military  power.  It  has 
no  place  in  the  institutions  of  this  country  [Great  Britain],  un- 
less the  articles  of  war  established  under  the  military  acts  be 
considered  as  of  that  character.  The  prerogative  of  proclaim- 
ing martial  law  within  this  kingdom  is  destroyed,  as  it  would 
appear,  by  the  Petition  of  Right."  ^ 

4.  Lord  Wellington  defined  martial  law  as  "  the  will  of  the 
commanding  general  exercised  over  a  conquered  or  occupied 
territory."  This  definition  was  given  by  him  in  his  despatches 
from  the  Peninsula,  and  was  subsequently  repeated  in  Parlia- 
ment, in  1 85 1.  In  the  same  debate,  Lords  Cottenham  and 
Campbell,  and  the  Attorney-General,  Sir  J.  Jcrvis,  declared  that 
"  martial  law  was  the  setting  aside  of  all  law,  and  acting  under 
military  power,  in  circumstances  of  great  emergency,  —  a  pro- 
ceeding w'hich  requires  to  be  followed  up  by  an  act  of  in- 
demnity." 

This  is  the  kind  of  law  to  which  the  gentlemen  appeal  to 
establish  the  validity  of  the  court  that  tried  the  petitioners. 

In  order  to  trace  the  history  and  exhibit  the  character  of  mar- 
tial law,  I  shall  refer  to  several  leading  precedents  in  English 
history. 

I.  The  Earl  of  Lancaster.  In  the  year  1322,  the  Earl  of  Lan- 
caster and  the  Earl  of  Hereford  rebelled  against  the  authority 
of  Edward  II.  They  collected  an  army  so  large  that  Edward 
was  compelled  to  raise  thirty  thousand  men  to  withstand  them. 
The   rebellious  Earls  posted  their  forces  on  the  Trent,  and  the 

1  London  edition  of  1794,  Vol.  I.  pp.  54,  55.  2  Book  I.  pp.  413,  414. 

8  Third  edition,  p.  578. 


IS8  MILITARY  COMMISSIONS. 

armies  of  the  King  confronted  them.  They  fought  at  Borough- 
bridge;  the  insurgent  forces  were  overthrown;  Hereford  was 
slain,  and  Lancaster,  taken  in  arms  at  the  head  of  his  army,  was, 
amid  the  noise  of  battle,  tried  by  a  court-martial,  sentenced 
to  death,  and  executed.  When  Edward  III.  came  into  power, 
five  years  later,  on  a  formal  petition  presented  to  Parliament 
by  Lancaster's  son,  setting  forth  the  facts,  the  case  was  ex- 
amined and  a  law  was  enacted  reversing  the  attainder,  and 
declaring:  "  i.  That  in  time  of  peace  no  man  ought  to  be  ad- 
judged to  death  for  treason,  or  any  other  offence,  without  being 
arraigned  and  put  to  answer.  2.  That  regularly,  when  the  Kifigs 
courts  are  open,  it  is  a  time  of  peace  in  judgment  of  law.  3.  That 
no  man  ought  to  be  sentenced  to  death,  by  the  record  of  the 
King,  without  his  legal  XxitX  per  pares T  ^ 

I  call  attention  to  this  case  as  being  similar  in  some  of  the 
points  to  the  cause  before  us.  This  man  was  taken  in  arms  at 
the  head  of  his  army,  and  in  battle.  He  was  immediately  tried 
by  court-martial  and  executed ;  but  it  was  declared,  in  the  de- 
cree that  reversed  the  attainder,  that  he  might  have  been  tried 
by  the  courts  of  the  land,  and  therefore,  for  the  purposes  of  his 
trial,  it  was  a  time  of  peace ;  that  he  might  have  been  presented, 
indicted,  and  regularly  tried  before  the  civil  tribunal,  and  there- 
fore the  whole  proceeding  was  illegal.  So  carefully  was  the  line 
drawn  between  civil  and  martial  law  five  hundred  years  ago. 

2.  Sir  Thomas  Darnell.  He  was  arrested  and  imprisoned  in 
1625,  by  order  of  the  King,  for  refusing  to  pay  a  tax  which  he 
regarded  as  illegal.  A  writ  of  habeas  corpus  was  prayed  for,  but 
answer  was  returned  by  the  court  that  he  had  been  arrested  by 
special  order  of  the  King,  and  that  was  held  to  be  a  sufficient 
answer  to  the  petition.  Then  the  great  cause  came  up  to  be 
tried  in  Parliament,  whether  the  order  of  the  King  was  suffi- 
cient to  override  the  writ  of  habeas  coffus,  and  after  a  long 
and  stormy  debate,  in  which  the  ablest  minds  in  England  were 
engaged,  the  Petition  of  Right,  of  1628,  received  the  sanction  of 
the  King.  In  that  statute  it  was  decreed  that  the  King  should 
never  again  suspend  the  writ  of  habeas  corpus ;  that  he  should 
never  again  try  a  subject  by  military  commission;  and  since 
that  day,  no  king  of  England  has  presumed  to  usurp  that  high 
prerogative  which  belongs  to  Parliament  alone. 

1  The  History  of  the  Picas  of  the  Crown,  by  Sir  Matthew  Hale,  (Dublin,  1778,) 
Vol.  I.  p.  347  ;  Humc*s  History  of  England,  (Boston,  1854,)  Vol.  II.  p.  159. 


MILITARY  COMMISSIONS.  1 59 

3.  For  the  purpose  of  citing  a  passage  in  the  argument  of 
Counsellor  Prynn,  I  call  attention  to  the  trial  of  Lord  Macguire. 
before  the  Court  of  King's  Bench,  in  1645.^  Lord  Macguire 
was  the  leader  of  the  great  Irish  rebellion  of  1641,  during  the 
progress  of  which  more  than  one  hundred  thousand  men,  wo- 
men, and  children  were  murdered,  under  circumstances  of  the 
greatest  brutality.  He  was  arrested  and  held  until  order  had 
been  restored;  and  in  1645  was  brought  before  the  King's 
Bench  for  trial.  Mr.  Prynn,  counsel  for  the  Crown,  published 
his  argument  in  the  case,  in  order,  as  he  says,  to  vindicate  the 
laws  of  England  — 

"  In  trying  this  notorious  offender,  guilty  of  the  horridest,  universalest 
treason  and  rebellion  that  ever  brake  forth  in  Ireland ;  and  that  in  a  time 
of  open  war  both  in  Ireland  and  England,  only  by  a  legal  indictment, 
and  indifferent  sworn  jury  of  honest  and  lawful  freeholders,  according  to 
the  known  laws  and  statutes  of  the  realm ;  not  in  a  court-martial,  or  any 
other  new-minted  judicature,  by  an  arbitrary,  summary,  illegal,  or  martial 
proceeding,  without  any  lawful  presentment,  indictment,  or  trial  by  a 
sworn,  impartial,  able  jury,  resolved  to  be  diametrically  contrary  to  the 
fundamental  laws,  customs,  great  charters,  statutes  of  the  realm,  and  in- 
herent liberty  of  the  subject,  especially  in  time  of  peace  when  all  other 
courts  of  justice  are  open,  and  of  very  dangerous  consequence,  and 
thereupon  especially  prohibited,  and  enacted  against." 

After  giving  a  long  list  of  references  to  authorities,  he  goes 
on  to  say  that  the  law  is  vindicated  still  more  — 

"  In  allowing  him  a  free,  honorable  trial  upon  an  indictment  first 
found  upon  oath  by  the  grand  jury,  and  then  suffering  him  to  take  not 
only  his  particular  challenges  by  the  poll  to  every  of  the  jurors  returned, 
upon  a  voyre  dire  (not  formerly  heard  of,  yet  allowed  him,  as  reasonable, 
to  take  away  all  color  of  partiality  or  non-indifference  in  the  jurors), 
whereupon  every  juryman  was  examined  before  he  was  sworn  of  the  jury, 
whether  he  had  contributed  or  advanced  any  moneys  upon  the  proposi- 
tions for  Ireland,  or  was  to  have  any  share  in  the  rebels'  lands  in  Ireland, 
by  act  of  Parliament,  or  otherwise.  But  likewise  in  permitting  him  to 
take  his  peremptory  challenge  to  thirty-five  of  the  two  juries  returned, 
without  any  particular  cause  alleged;  which  liberty  —  our  laws  allowing 
men,  in  favorem  vitcc,  and  because  there  may  be  private  causes  of  just 
exceptions  to  them  known  to  the  prisoner,  not  fit  to  be  revealed,  or  for 
which  he  wants  present  proof,  and  that  in  cases  of  high  treason,  as  well 
as  of  felony  —  the  court  thought  just  and  equal  to  allow  the  same  to 
him,  though  a  notorious  Irish  rebel."  * 

'  4  State  Trials,  (London,  1809,)  pj).  653  et  seq.  -  Ibid.,  pp.  691-693. 


l6o  MILITARY  COMMISSIONS. 

4.  The  Bill  of  Rights  of  1688.  The  house  of  Stuart  had 
been  expelled,  and  William  had  succeeded  to  the  British  throne. 
Great  disturbances  had  arisen  in  the  realm  in  consequence  of 
the  change  of  dynasty.  Plots  were  formed  in  favor  of  James  in 
all  parts  of  England.  The  King's  person  was  unsafe  in  Lon- 
don. He  informed  the  Lords  and  Commons  of  the  great  dan- 
gers that  threatened  the  kingdom,  and  reminded  them  that  he 
had  no  right  to  declare  martial  law,  to  suspend  the  writ  of  habeas 
corpus^  or  to  seize  and  imprison  his  subjects  on  suspicion  of 
treason  or  intended  outbreak  against  the  peace  of  the  realm. 
He  laid  the  case  before  them,  and  asked  their  advice  and  assist- 
ance. In  answer  Parliament  passed  the  celebrated  Habeas  Cor- 
pus Act.  Since  that  day,  no  king  of  England  has  dared  to 
suspend  the  writ.     It  is  only  done  by  Parliament. 

5.  Governor  Wall.  In  the  year  1782,  Joseph  Wall,  Governor 
of  the  British  colony  at  Goree,  in  Africa,  had  under  his  com- 
mand about  five  hundred  British  soldiers.  Suspecting  that  a 
mutiny  was  about  to  break  out  in  the  garrison,  he  assembled 
them  on  the  parade-ground,  held  a  hasty  consultation  with  his 
officers,  and  immediately  ordered  Benjamin  Armstrong,  a  pri- 
vate and  supposed  ringleader,  to  be  seized,  stripped,  tied  to 
the  wheel  of  an  artillery  carriage,  and  to  receive  eight  hundred 
lashes  with  a  rope  one  inch  in  diameter.  The  order  was  carried 
into  execution,  and  Armstrong  died  of  his  injuries.  Twenty 
years  afterward  Governor  Wall  was  brought  before  the  most 
august  civil  tribunal  of  England  to  answer  for  the  murder  of 
Armstrong.  Sir  Archibald  McDonald,  Lord  Chief  Baron  of 
the  Court  pf  Exchequer,  Sir  Souldcn  Lawrence,  of  the  King's 
Bench,  and  Sir  Giles  Rooke,  of  the  Common  Pleas,  constituted 
the  court.  Wall's  counsel  claimed  that  he  had  the  power  of  life 
and  death  in  his  hands  in  time  of  mutiny;  that  the  necessity  of 
the  case  warranted  him  in  suspending  the  usual  forms  of  law ; 
that  as  governor  and  military  commander-in-chief  of  the  forces 
at  Goree,  he  was  the  sole  judge  of  the  necessities  of  the  case. 
After  a  patient  hearing  before  that  high  court,  he  was  found 
guilty  of  murder,  was  sentenced,  and  executed.^ 

I  now  ask  your  attention  to  analogous  precedents  in  our  own 
history. 

I.  On  the  I2th  of  June,  1775,  General  Gage,  the  commander 
of  the  British  forces,   declared   martial  law  in  Boston.     The 

1  28  State  Trials,  p.  5^ ;  see  also  Hough's  Military  Law,  pp.  537-540. 


MILITARY  COMMISSIONS,  i6i 

battles  of  Concord  and  Lexington  had  been  fought  two  months 
before.  The  Colonial  army  was  besieging  the  city  and  its  Brit- 
ish garrison.  It  was  but  five  days  before  the  battle  of  Bunker 
Hill.  Parliament  had,  in  the  previous  February,  declared  the 
Colonies  in  a  state  of  rebellion.  Yet,  by  the  common  consent 
of  English  jurists.  General  Gage  violated  the  laws  of  England, 
and  laid  himself  liable  to  its  penalty,  when  he  declared  martial 
law.  This  position  is  sustained,  in  the  opinion  of  Mr.  Justice 
Woodbury,  in  Luther  v,  Borden  et  al} 

2,  On  the  7th  of  November,  1775,  Lord  Dunmore  declared 
martial  law  throughout  the  Commonwealth  of  Virginia.  This 
was  long  after  the  battle  of  Bunker  Hill,  and  when  war  was 
flaming  throughout  the  Colonies;  yet  he  was  denounced  by 
the  Virginia  Assembly  for  having  assumed  a  power  which  the 
King  himself  dared  not  exercise,  as  it  **  annuls  the  law  of  the 
land,  and  introduces  the  most  execrable  of  all  systems,  martial 
law."  Mr.  Justice  Woodbury  declares^  the  act  of  Lord  Dun- 
more  unwarranted  by  British  law. 

3.  The  practice  of  our  Revolutionary  fathers  on  this  subject 
is  most  instructive.  Their  conduct  throughout  the  great  strug- 
gle for  independence  was  equally  marked  by  respect  for  civil 
law  and  jealousy  of  martial  law.  Indeed,  it  was  one  of  the 
leading  grievances  set  forth  in  the  Declaration  of  Independence, 
that  the  King  of  Great  Britain  had  **  affected  to  render  the  mil- 
itary independent  of,  and  superior  to,  the  civil  power " ;  and 
though  Washington  was  clothed  with  almost  dictatorial  powers, 
he  did  not  presume  to  override  the  civil  law,  or  disregard  the 
orders  of  the  courts,  except  by  express  authority  of  Congress 
or  the  States.  In  his  file  of  general  orders,  covering  a  period 
of  five  years,  there  are  but  four  instances  in  which  civilians 
appear  to  have  been  tried  by  a  military  court,  and  all  these 
trials  were  expressly  authorized  by  resolutions  of  Congress. 

In  the  autumn  of  1777.  the  gloomiest  period  of  the  war,  a 
powerful  hostile  army  landed  on  the  shore  of  Chesapeake  Bay, 
for  the  purpose  of  invading  Maryland  and  Pennsylvania.  It 
was  feared  that  the  disloyal  inhabitants  along  his  line  of  march 
would  give  such  aid  and  information  to  the  British  commander 
as  to  imperil  the  safety  of  our  cause.     Congress  resolved  "  that 

*  7  Howard,  48.      For  a  history  of  the  transaction,  see  Annual  Register  for 

1775.  P-  '33- 

*  7  Howard,  65. 

VOL.   I.  If 


1 62  MILITAR  Y  COMMISSIONS. 

the  executive  authorities  of  Pennsylvania  and  Maryland  be  re- 
quested to  cause  all  persons  within  their  respective  States,  no- 
toriously disaffected,  to  be  forthwith  apprehended,  disarmed, 
and  secured  till  such  time  as  the  respective  States  think  they 
can  be  released  without  injury  to  the  common  cause,"  The 
Governor  of  Pennsylvania  authorized  the  arrests,  and  many  dis- 
loyal citizens  were  taken  into  custody  by  Washington's  officers, 
who  refused  to  answer  the  writ  of  liabcas  corpus  which  a  civil 
court  issued  for  the  release  of  the  prisoners.  Very  soon  after- 
wards the  Pennsylvania  legislature  passed  a  law  indemnifying 
the  Governor  and  the  military  authorities,  and  allowing  a  simi- 
lar course  to  be  pursued  thereafter,  on  recommendation  of  Con- 
gress or  the  commanding  officer  of  the  army.  But  this  law  gave 
authority  only  to  arrest  and  hold,  —  not  to  try ;  and  the  act  was 
to  remain  in  force  only  till  the  end  of  the  next  session  of  the 
General  Assembly.  So  careful  were  our  fathers  to  recognize 
the  supremacy  of  civil  law,  and  to  resist  all  pretensions  of  mar- 
tial law  to  authority. 

4.  I  pass  next  to  notice  an  event  that  occurred  under  the 
Confederation,  before  the  Constitution  was  adopted.  I  refer  to 
Shays's  Rebellion,  in  1787, — that  rebellion  which  was  men- 
tioned by  Hamilton  in  the  Federalist  as  a  proof  that  we  needed 
a  strong  central  government  to  preserve  our  liberties.  During 
all  that  disturbance  there  was  no  declaration  of  martial  law,  and 
the  habeas  corpus  was  only  suspended  for  a  limited  time  and 
with  very  careful  restrictions.  Governor  Bowdoin's  order  to 
General  Lincoln,  on  the  19th  of  January,  1787,  was  in  these 
words :  **  Consider  yourself  in  all  your  military  offensive  opera- 
tions constantly  as  under  the  direction  of  the  civil  officer,  save 
where  any  armed  force  shall  appear  to  oppose  your  marching  to 
execute  these  orders." 

5.  I  refer  next  to  a  case  under  the  Constitution,  the  rebellion 
of  1793  in  Western  Pennsylvania.  President  Washington  did 
not  march  with  his  troops  until  the  judge  of  the  United  States 
District  Court  had  certified  that  the  Marshal  was  unable  to  exe- 
cute his  warrants.  Though  the  parties  were  tried  for  treason, 
all  the  arrests  were  made  by  the  authority  of  the  civil  officers. 
The  orders  of  the  Secretary  of  War  stated  that  **  the  object  of 
the  expedition  was  to  assist  the  Marshal  of  the  District  to  make 
prisoners."  Every  movement  was  made  under  the  direction  of 
the  civil  authorities.     So  anxious  was  Washington  on  this  sub- 


MILITAR  y  COMMISSIONS.  1 63 

ject,  that  he  gave  his  orders  with  the  greatest  care,  and  went  in 
person  to  see  that  they  were  carefully  executed.  He  issued 
orders  declaring  that  **  the  army  should  not  consider  themselves 
as  judges  or  executioners  of  the  laws,  but  only  as  employed  to 
support  the  proper  authorities  in  the  execution  of  the  laws.'* 

6.  I  next  refer  to  an  incident  connected  with  the  Burr  con- 
spiracy, in  1807.  The  first  developments  of  this  plot  were 
exceedingly  alarming.  Reports  were  forwarded  to  President 
Jefferson,  and  by  him  communicated  confidentially  to  the  Sen- 
ate of  the  United  States,  with  his  recommendation  that  Congress 
pass  a  law  authorizing  the  suspension,  for  a  limited  period,  of 
the  writ  of  habeas  corf  us.  On  the  26th  of  January,  the  Senate, 
by  a  unanimous  vote,  passed  a  bill  authorizing  the  suspension 
of  the  writ  for  three  months,  in  cases  of  persons  who  were 
charged  under  oath  with  treason  or  misprision  of  treason.  Thus 
carefully  limited  and  restricted,  the  bill  was  sent,  under  the  seal 
of  secrecy,  to  the  House  of  Representatives.  When  it  was  read, 
the  doors  were  immediately  opened;  a  motion  was  made  to 
reject  the  bill,  that  it  might  not  even  reach  its  first  reading; 
and,  after  a  very  able  debate  of  five  days,  it  was  rejected  by  a 
vote  of  one  hundred  and  thirteen  to  nineteen. 

Not  content,  even,  with  that  decided  expression  of  sentiment, 
two  weeks  later,  on  the  17th  of  February,  a  resolution  was  intro- 
duced into  the  House  ordering  the  Committee  on  the  Judiciary 
"to  bring  in  a  bill  more  thoroughly  to  protect  the  rights  of 
American  citizens  from  arrest  and  imprisonment  under  color  of 
authority  of  the  President  of  the  United  States."  After  a  very 
searching  and  able  debate,  it  was  concluded  that  existing  laws 
afforded  ample  protection ;  but  so  anxious  were  the  representa- 
tives of  the  people  to  place  the  safety  of  the  citizen  beyond  the 
reach  of  doubt,  that  the  resolution  came  within  t\vo  votes  of 
passing  in  the  House.  The  vote  stood  58  yeas  to  60  nays;  and 
that,  too,  in  the  very  midst  of  the  threatened  conspiracy.^ 

I  will  remark  in  this  connection,  that,  though  President  Jef- 
ferson recommended  the  passage  of  the  act  referred  to,  yet 
in  his  correspondence  he  had  previously  expressed  the  opinion 
that  it  was  unwise,  even  in  insurrection,  to  suspend  the  writ 
of  habeas  corpus? 

*  The  full  history  of  this  legislative  action  will  be  found  in  Benton's  Abridgment 
of  Congressional  Debates,  Vol.  III.  pp.  504-542. 
a  Works,  Vol.  II.  pp.  329,  355. 


l64  MILITARY  COMMISSIONS. 

So  jealous  were  our  people  of  any  infringement  of  the  rights 
of  the  citizen  to  the  privileges  of  the  writ,  that  in  the  very 
midst  of  the  dangers  at  New  Orleans  General  Wilkinson  was 
brought  before  a  court  there  for  having  neglected  promptly  to 
obey  a  writ  of  habeas  corpus. 

7.  I  call  the  attention  of  the  court  for  a  moment  to  the  dis- 
cussion in  Congress  in  relation  to  the  action  of  General  Jack- 
son, in  1 8 14,  at  New  Orleans.  It  will  be  remembered  that, 
notwithstanding  flagrant  war  was  blazing  around  New  Orleans 
when  the  General  declared  martial  law,  yet  it  was  held  that  he 
had  violated  the  sanctity  of  the  courts,  and  he  was  fined  ac- 
cordingly.^ In  1842  a  bill  was  introduced  into  Congress  to 
reimburse  him  for  the  fine.  The  debate  was  very  able  and 
thorough.  James  Buchanan,  then  a  member  of  Congress,  spoke 
in  its  favor,  and  no  one  will  doubt  his  willingness  to  put  the 
conduct  of  Jackson  on  the  most  favorable  ground  possible.  I 
quote  from  his  speech :  — 

"  It  had  never  been  contended  on  this  floor  that  a  military  commander 
possessed  the  power,  under  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States,  to 
declare  martial  law.  No  such  principle  had  ever  been  asserted  on  this 
(the  Democratic)  side  of  the  House.  He  had  then  expressly  declared 
(and  the  published  report  of  the  debate,  which  he  had  recently  exam- 
ined, would  justify  him  in  this  assertion)  that  we  did  not  contend, 
strictly  speaking,  that  General  Jackson  had  any  constitutional  right  to 
declare  martial  law  at  New  Orleans ;  but  that,  as  this  exercise  of  power 
was  the  only  means  of  saving  the  city  from  capture  by  the  enemy,  he 
stood  amply  justified  before  his  country  for  the  act.  We  placed  the 
argument  not  upon  the  ground  of  strict  constitutional  right,  but  of  such 
an  overruling  necessity  as  left  General  Jackson  no  alternative  between 
the  establishment  of  martial  law  and  the  sacrifice  of  New  Orleans  to  the 
rapine  and  lust  of  the  British  soldiery.  On  this  ground  Mr.  B.  had 
planted  himself  firmly  at  the  last  session  of  Congress ;  and  here  he  in- 
tended to  remain."  ^ 

All  the  leading  members  took  the  same  ground.  It  was  not 
attempted  to  justify,  but  only  to  palliate  and  excuse  the  con- 
duct of  Jackson. 

8.  I  call  attention  next  to  the  opinions  of  our  courts  in  re- 
gard to  martial  law  and  the  suspension  of  the  writ  of  habeas 
corpus,  and  first  read  from  the  opinion  of  Chief  Justice  Mar- 

1  For  a  full  record  of  the  law  in  the  case,  see  3  Martin's  Lou.  Rep.,  O.  S.,  530. 
•  Benton*s  Abridgment  of  the  Debates  of  Congress,  Vol.  XIV.  p.  628. 


MILITARY  COMMISSIONS.  165 

shall  in  Ex  parte  Bollman :  "  If  at  any  time  the  public  safety 
should  require  the  suspension  of  the  powers  vested  ....  in  the 
courts  of  the  United  States,  it  is  for  the  legislature  to  say  so. 
That  question  depends  on  political  considerations,  on  which  the 
legislature  is  to  decide.  Until  the  legislative  will  be  expressed, 
the  court  can  only  see  its  duty,  and  must  obey  the  laws."  ^ 

I  also  cite  the  opinion  of  the  late  Chief  Justice  m  Ex  parte 
Menyman,^  in  which  it  was  decided  that  the  legislative  au- 
thority alone  could  suspend  the  writ  of  habeas  corpus.  This 
decision  was  rendered  in  1862,  in  the  Maryland  Circuit. 

I  shall  conclude  these  citations  from  our  own  judicial  history 
by  reading  a  few  paragraphs  from  the  opinion  of  Mr.  Justice 
Woodbury  in  Luther  v,  Borden  et  al?  The  passage  loses  none 
of  its  force  from  the  fact  that  it  is  part  of  a  dissenting  opinion ; 
for  the  principles  involved  in  it  were  not  strictly  in  issue,  nor 
were  they  denied  by  the  court.  After  stating  his  positions  at 
length,  the  learned  justice  says :  — 

"  For  convincing  reasons  like  these,  in  every  country  which  makes 
•any  claim  to  political  or  civil  liberty,  *  martial  law,'  as  here  attempted, 
and  as  once  practised  in  England  against  her  own  people,  has  been 
expressly  forbidden  there  for  near  two  centuries,  as  well  as  by  the  prin- 
ciples of  every  other  free  constitutional  govemment.  (i  HaJlam's 
Const.  Hist.  420.)  And  it  would  be  not  a  little  extraordinary  if  the 
spirit  of  our  institutions,  both  State  and  national,  was  not  much  stronger 
than  in  England  against  the  unlimited  exercise  of  martial  law  over  a 
whole  people,  whether  attempted  by  any  chief  magistrate  or  even  by  a 
legislature 

"  My  impression  is  that  a  state  of  war,  whether  foreign  or  domestic, 
may  exist,  in  the  great  perils  of  which  it  is  competent,  under  its  rights 
and  on  principles  of  national  law,  for  a  commanding  officer  of  troops 
under  the  controlling  govemment  to  extend  certain  rights  of  war,  not 
only  over  his  camp,  but  its  environs  and  the  near  field  of  his  military 
operations.  (6  American  Archives,  186.)  But  no  further  nor  wider. 
(Johnson  v.  Davis  ct  al.,  3  Martin,  530,  551.)  On  this  rested  the  justi- 
fication of  one  of  the  great  commanders  of  this  country  and  of  the  age, 
in  a  transaction  so  well  known  at  New  Orleans.  But  in  civil  strife  they 
are  not  to  extend  beyond  the  place  where  insurrection  exists.  (3  Mar- 
tin, 551.)  Nor  to  portions  of  the  State  remote  from  the  scene  of  military 
operations,  nor  after  the  resistance  is  over,  nor  to  persons  not  con- 
nected with  it  (Grant  z\  Gould  et  al.y  2  H.  Black.  69.)  Nor  even 
within  the  scene  can  they  extend  to  the  person  or  property  of  citizens 

'  4  Cranch,  loi.  ^  ^  American  I^w  Register,  524.  ^  7  Howard,  i. 


1 66  MILITAR  Y  COMMISSIONS. 

against  whom  no  probable  cause  exists  which  may  justify  it  (Sutton  v, 
Johnston,  i  D.  &  E.  549.)"  ^ 

I  cannot  leave  this  branch  of  my  argument  without  fortify- 
ing my  position  by  the  authority  of  two  of  the  greatest  names 
on  the  roll  of  British  jurists.  To  enable  me  to  do  this,  I  call 
attention  to  the  celebrated  trial  of  the  Rev.  John  Smith,  mis- 
sionary at  Demerara  in  British  Guiana.  In  the  year  1823  a 
rebellion  broke  out  in  Demerara,  extending  over  isome  fifty 
plantations.  The  governor  of  the  district  immediately  declared 
martial  law.  A  number  of  the  insurgents  were  killed,  and  the 
rebellion  was  crushed.  It  was  alleged  that  the  Rev.  John  Smith, 
a  missionary  sent  out  by  the  London  Missionary  Society,  had 
been  an  aider  and  abettor  of  the  rebellion.  A  court-martial  was 
appointed,  and,  in  order  to  give  it  the  semblance  of  civil  law, 
the  Governor-General  appointed  the  chief  justice  of  the  district 
as  a  staff  officer,  and  then  detailed  him  as  president  of  the  court 
to  try  the  accused.  All  the  other  members  of  the  court  were 
military  men,  and  he  was  made  a  military  officer  for  the  special 
occasion.  Missionary  Smith  was  tried,  found  guilty,  and  sen- 
tenced to  be  hung.  The  proceedings  came  to  the  notice  of 
Parliament,  and  were  made  the  subject  of  inquiry  and  debate. 
Smith  died  in  prison  before  the  day  of  execution,  but  the  trial 
gave  rise  to  one  of  the  ablest  debates  of  the  century,  in  which 
the  principles  involved  in  the  cause  now  before  this  court  were 
fully  discussed.  Lord  Brougham  and  Sir  James  Mackintosh 
were  among  the  speakers.  In  the  course  of  his  speech.  Lord 
Brougham  said :  — 

"  No  such  thing  as  martial  law  is  recognized  in  Great  Britain,  and 

courts  founded  on  proclamations  of  martial  law  are  wholly  unknown 

Suppose  I  were  ready  to  admit  that,  on  the  pressure  of  a  great  emer- 
gency, such  as  invasion  or  rebellion,  when  there  is  no  time  for  the  slow 
and  cumbrous  proceedings  of  the  civil  law,  a  proclamation  may  justifi- 
ably be  issued  for  excluding  the  ordinary  tribunals,  and  directing  that 
offences  should  be  tried  by  a  military  court,  —  such  a  proceeding  might 
be  justified  by  necessity ;  but  it  could  rest  on  that  alone.  Created  by 
necessity,  necessity  must  limit  its  continuance.  It  would  be  the  worst  of 
all  conceivable  grievances,  —  it  would  be  a  calamity  unspeakable,  —  if 
the  whole  law  and  constitution  of  England  were  suspended  one  hour 

longer  than  the  most  imperious  necessity  demanded I  know  that 

the  proclamation  of  martial  law  renders  every  man  liable  to  be  treated 

^  7  Howard,  62,  83,  84. 


MILITARY  COMMISSIONS.  167 

as  a  soldier.  But  the  instant  the  necessity  ceases,  that  instant  the  state 
of  soldiership  ought  to  cease,  and  the  rights,  with  the  relations,  of  civil 
life  to  be  restored:'  ^ 

The  speech  of  Sir  James  Mackintosh,  who  was  perhaps  the 
very  first  English  jurist  of  his  day,  is  in  itself  a  magazine  of  le- 
gal learning,  and  treats  so  fully  and  exhaustively  the  subject  of 
martial  law  and  military  tribunals  that  I  shall  take  the  liberty  of 
quoting  several  passages.  I  do  this  with  less  hesitation  because 
I  have  found  no  argument  so  full  and  complete,  and  no  author- 
ity more  perfectly  applicable  to  the  cause  before  this  court. 

"  On  the  legality  of  the  trial,  sir,  the  impregnable  speech  of  my  learned 
friend  *  has  left  me  little  if  anything  to  say.  The  only  principle  on  which 
the  law  of  England  tolerates  what  is  called  '  martial  law  *  is  necessity ; 
its  introduction  can  be  justified  only  by  necessity ;  its  continuance  re- 
quires precisely  the  same  justification  of  necessity ;  and  if  it  survives  the 
necessity,  in  which  alone  it  rests,  for  a  single  minute,  it  becomes  instantly 
a  mere  exercise  of  lawless  violence.  When  foreign  invasion  or  civil  war 
renders  it  impossible  for  courts  of  law  to  sit,  or  to  enforce  the  execution 
of  their  judgments,  it  becomes  necessary  to  find  some  rude  substitute 
for  them,  and  to  employ  for  that  purpose  the  military,  which  is  the  only 
remaining  force  in  the  community." 

I  desire  to  call  particular  attention  to  the  sentences  which  lay 
down  the  chief  condition  that  can  justify  martial  law,  and  also 
mark  the  boundary  between  martial  and  civil  law. 

"  While  the  laws  are  silenced  by  the  noise  of  arms,  the  rulers  of  the 
armed  force  must  punish,  as  equitably  as  they  can,  those  crimes  which 
threaten  their  own  safety  and  that  of  society,  but  no  longer ;  —  every 
moment  beyond  is  usurpation.  As  soon  as  the  laws  can  act,  every  other 
mode  of  punishing  supposed  crimes  is  itself  an  enormous  crime.  If 
argument  be  not  enough  on  this  subject,  —  if,  indeed,  the  mere  state- 
ment be  not  the  evidence  of  its  own  truth,  —  I  appeal  to  the  highest 
and  most  venerable  authority  known  to  our  law." 

He  proceeds  to  quote  Sir  Matthew  Hale  on  martial  law,  and 
cites  the  case  of  the  Earl  of  Lancaster,  to  which  I  have  already 
referred,  and  then  declares :  — 

"  No  other  doctrine  has  ever  been  maintained  in  this  country  since 
the  solemn  Parliamentary  condemnation  of  the  usurpations  of  Charles  I., 
which  he  was  himself  compelled  to  sanction  in  the  Petition  of  Right. 
In  none  of  the  revolutions  or  rebellions  which  have  since  occurred  has 

*  Speeches  of  Henry,  Lord  Brougham,  (Edinburgh,  1838,)  Vol.  11.  pp.  70,  71. 

*  Lord  Brougham. 


1 68  MILITARY  COMMISSIONS. 

martial  law  been  exercised,  however  much,  in  some  of  them,  the  neces- 
sity might  seem  to  exist.  Even  in  those  most  deplorable  of  all  commo- 
tions which  tore  Ireland  in  pieces  in  the  last  years  of  the  eighteenth 
century,  —  in  the  midst  of  ferocious  revolt  and  cruel  ^punishment,  —  at 
the  very  moment  of  legalizing  these  martial  jurisdictions  in  1799,  ^^ 
very  Irish  statute  which  was  passed  for  that  purpose  did  homage  to  the 
ancient  and  fundamental  principles  of  the  law  in  the  very  act  of  depart- 
ing from  them.  The  Irish  statute,  39  George  III.,  chap.  3,  after  reciting 
*  that  martial  law  had  been  successfully  exercised  to  the  restoration  of 
peace,  so  far  as  to  permit  the  course  of  the  common  law  partially  to 
take  place,  but  that  the  rebellion  continued  to  rage  in  considerable  parts 
of  the  kingdom,  whereby  it  has  become  necessary  for  Parliament  to  in- 
terpose,' goes  on  to  enable  the  Lord  Lieutenant  *  to  punish  rebels  by 
courts-martial.*  This  statute  is  the  most  positive  declaration  that,  where 
the  common  law  can  be  exercised  in  some  parts  of  the  country  ^  martial  law 
cannot  be  established  in  others^  though  rebellion  actually  prevails  in  those 
others^  without  an  extraordinary  interposition  of  the  supreme  legislative 
authority  itself  .  .  . 

"  I  have  already  quoted  from  Sir  Matthew  Hale  his  position  respect- 
ing the  twofold  operation  of  martial  law ;  —  as  it  affects  the  army  of  the 
power  which  exercises  it,  and  as  it  acts  against  the  army  of  the  enemy. 
That  great  judge,  happily  unused  to  standing  aniiies,  and  reasonably 
prejudiced  against  military  jurisdiction,  does  not  pursue  his  distinction 
through  all  its  consequences,  and  assigns  a  ground  for  the  whole  which 
will  support  only  one  of  its  parts.  *  The  necessity  of  order  and  discipline 
in  an  army '  is,  according  to  him,  the  reason  why  the  law  tolerates  this 
departure  from  its  most  valuable  rules ;  but  this  necessity  only  justifies 
the  exercise  of  martial  law  over  the  army  of  our  own  state.  One  part  of 
it  has  since  been  annually  taken  out  of  the  common  law  and  provided 
for  by  the  Mutiny  Act,  which  subjects  the  military  offences  of  soldiers 
only  to  punishment  by  military  courts  even  in  time  of  peace.  Hence  we 
may  now  be  said  annually  to  legalize  military  law ;  which,  however,  dif- 
fers essentially  from  martial  law,  in  being  confined  to  offences  against 
military  discipline,  and  in  not  extending  to  any  persons  but  those  who 
are  members  of  the  army.  Martial  law  exercised  against  enemies  or 
rebels  cannot  depend  on  the  same  principle,  for  it  is  certainly  not  in- 
tended to  enforce  or  preserve  discipline  among  them.  It  seems  to  me 
to  be  only  a  more  regular  and  convenient  mode  of  exercising  the  right  to 
kill  in  war,  —  a  right  originating  in  self-defence,  and  limited  to  those 
cases  where  such  killing  is  necessary  as  the  means  of  insuring  that  end. 
Martial  law  put  in  force  against  rebels  can  only  be  excused  as  a  mode  of 
more  deliberately  and  equitably  selecting  the  persons  from  whom  quarter 
ought  to  be  withheld  in  a  case  where  all  have  forfeited  their  claim  to  it. 
It  is  nothing  more  than  a  sort  of  better  regulated  decimation,  founded 


MILITARY  COMMISSIONS.  169 

upon  choice,  instead  of  chance,  in  order  to  provide  for  the  safety  of  the 
conquerors,  without  the  horrors  of  undistinguished  slaughter ;  it  is  justi- 
fiable only  where  it  is  an  act  of  mercy.  Thus  the  matter  stands  by  the 
law  of  nations.  But  by  the  law  of  England  it  cannot  be  exercised  except 
where  the  jurisdiction  of  courts  of  justice  is  interrupted  by  violence. 
Did  this  necessity  exist  at  Demerara,  on  the  13th  of  October,  1823? 
Was  it  on  that  day  impossible  for  the  courts  of  law  to  try  offences  ?  It 
is  clear  that,  if  the  case  be  tried  by  the  law  of  England,"  and  unless  an 
affirmative  answer  can  be  given  to  these  questions  of  fact,  the  court- 
martial  had  no  legal  power  to  try  Mr.  Smith." 

After  presenting  arguments  to  show  that  a  declaration  of  mar- 
tial law  was  not  necessary,  the  learned  jurist  continues :  — 

"  For  six  weeks,  then,  before  the  court-martial  was  assembled,  and  for 
twelve  weeks  before  that  court  pronounced  sentence  of  death  on  Mr. 
Smith,  all  hostility  liad  ceased,  no  necessity  for  their  existence  can  be 
pretended,  and  every  act  which  they  did  was  an  open  and  deliberate 
defiance  of  the  law  of  England. 

Where,  then,  are  we  to  look  for  any  color  of  law  in  these  proceedings  ? 
Do  they  derive  it  from  the  Dutch  law  ?  I  have  diligentiy  examined  the 
Roman  law,  which  is  the  foundation  of  that  system,  and  the  writings  of 
those  most  eminent  jurists  who  have  contributed  so  much  to  the  reputa- 
tion of  Holland.  I  can  find  in  them  no  trace  of  any  such  principle  as 
martial  law.  Military  law,  indeed,  is  clearly  defined ;  and  provision  is 
made  for  the  punishment  by  military  judges  of  the  purely  military  offen- 
ces of  soldiers.  But  to  any  power  of  extending  military  jurisdiction  over 
those  who  are  not  soldiers,  there  is  not  an  allusion.  I  will  not  furnish  a 
subject  for  the  pleasantries  of  my  right  honorable  friend,  or  tempt  him 
into  a  repetition  of  his  former  innumerable  blunders,  by  naming  the 
greatest  of  these  jurists  ^  \  lest  his  date,  his  occupation,  and  his  rank  might 
be  again  mistaken,  and  the  venerable  President  of  the  Supreme  Court 
of  Holland  might  be  once  more  called  a  *  clerk  of  the  States  General.' 
*  Persecutio  militis,'  says  that  learned  person,  *  pertinet  ad  judicem  mili- 
tarem  quando  delictum  sit  militare,  et  ad  judicem  communem  quando 
delictum  sit  commune.'  Far  from  supposing  it  to  be  possible  that  those 
who  were  not  soldiers  could  ever  be  triable  by  military  courts  for  crimes 
not  military,  he  expressly  declares  the  law  and  practice  of  the  United 
Provinces  to  be,  that  even  soldiers  are  amenable,  for  ordinary  offences 
against  society,  to  the  court  of  Holland  and  Friesland,  of  which  he  was 
long  the  chief.  The  law  of  Holland,  therefore,  does  not  justify  this  trial 
by  martial  law. 

''Nothing  remains  but  some  law  of  the  colony  itself.     Where  is  it? 

*  Bynkershoek,  of  whose  professional  rank  Mr.  Canning  had  professed  igno- 
rance. 


1 70  MILITAR  Y  COMMISSIONS. 

It  is  not  alleged  or  alluded  to  in  any  part  of  this  trial.  We  have  heard 
nothing  of  it  this  evening.  So  unwilling  was  I  to  believe  that  this  court- 
martial  would  dare  to  act  without  some  pretence  of  legal  authority,  that  I 
suspected  an  authority  for  martial  law  would  be  dug  out  of  some  dark  cor- 
ner of  a  Guiana  ordinance.  I  knew  it  was  neither  in  the  law  of  England 
nor  in  that  of  Holland ;  and  I  now  believe  that  it  does  not  exist  even  in 
the  law  of  Demerara.  The  silence  of  those  who  are  interested  in  pro- 
ducing it  is  not  my  only  reason  for  this  belief.  I  happen  to  have  seen 
the  instructions  of  the  States  General  to  their  Governor  of  Demerara,  in 
November,  1792,  probably  the  last  ever  issued  to  such  an  officer  by  that 
illustrious  and  memorable  assembly.  They  speak  at  large  of  councils  of 
war,  both  for  consultation  and  for  judicature.  They  authorize  these 
councils  to  try  the  military  offences  of  soldiers ;  and  therefore,  by  an  in- 
ference which  is  stronger  than  silence,  authorize  us  to  conclude  that  the 
Governor  had  no  power  to  subject  those  who  were  not  soldiers  to  their 
authority. 

"  The  result,  then,  is,  that  the  law  of  Holland  does  not  allow  what  is 
called  *  martial  law  *  in  any  case ;  and  that  the  law  of  England  does  not 
allow  it  without  a  necessity,  which  did  not  exist  in  the  case  of  Mr.  Smith. 
If,  then,  martial  law  is  not  to  be  justified  by  the  law  of  England,  or  by 
the  law  of  Holland,  or  by  the  law  of  Demerara,  what  is  there  to  hinder 
me  from  affirming,  that  the  members  of  this  pretended  court  had  no  more 
right  to  try  Mr.  Smith  than  any  other  fifteen  men  on  the  face  of  the  earth  ; 
that  their  acts  were  nullities,  and  their  meeting  a  conspiracy  ;  that  their 
sentence  was  a  direction  to  commit  a  crime  ;  that  if  it  had  been  obeyed,  it 
would  not  have  been  an  execution,  but  a  murder ;  and  that  they,  and  all 
other  parties  engaged  in  it,  must  have  answered  for  it  with  their  lives  ?  "  * 

May  it  please  the  court,  many  more  such  precedents  as  I 
have  already  cited  might  be  added  to  the  list,  but  it  is  unneces- 
sary. They  all  teach  the  same  lesson.  They  enable  us  to  trace 
from  its  far-off  source  the  progress  and  development  of  An- 
glo-Saxon liberty;  its  innumerable  conflicts  with  irresponsible 
power;  its  victories,  dearly  bought,  but  always  won,  —  victories 
which  have  crowned  with  immortal  honors  the  institutions-  of 
England,  and  left  their  indelible  impress  upon  the  Anglo-Saxon 
mind.  These  principles  our  fathers  brought  with  them  to  the 
New  World,  and  guarded  with  sleepless  vigilance  and  religious 
devotion.  In  its  darkest  hour  of  trial,  during  the  late  Rebellion, 
the  republic  did  not  forget  them.  So  completely  have  they 
been  impressed  on  the  minds  of  American  lawyers,  so  thor- 

1  Miscellaneous  Works  of  the  Rt.  Hon.  Sir  James  Mackintosh,  (London,  1S51,) 
pp.  734  et  seq. 


MILITAR  Y  COMMISSIONS.  1 7 1 

oughly  have  they  been  ingrained  into  the  very  fibre  of  Ameri- 
can character,  that  notwithstanding  the  citizens  of  eleven  States 
went  off  into  wild  rebellion,  broke  their  oaths  of  allegiance  to 
the  Constitution,  and  levied  war  against  their  country,  yet,  with 
all  their  crimes  upon  them,  there  was  still  in  the  minds  of  those 
men,  during  all  the  struggle,  so  deep  and  enduring  an  impres- 
sion on  this  great  subject  that,  even  during  their  rebellion,  the 
courts  of  the  Southern  States  adjudicated  causes  like  the  one 
now  before  you  in  favor  of  the  civil  law  and  against  courts- 
martial  established  under  military  authority  for  the  trial  of  citi- 
zens. In  Texas,  Mississippi,  Virginia,  and  other  insurgent 
States,  by  the  order  of  the  Rebel  President,  the  writ  of  habeas 
corpus  was  suspended,  martial  law  was  declared,  and  provost- 
marshals  were  appointed  to  exercise  military  authority.  But 
when  civilians,  arrested  by  military  authority,  petitioned  for  re- 
lease by  writ  of  habeas  corpus^  in  every  case  save  one  the  writ 
was  granted,  and  it  was  decided  that  there  could  be  no  suspen- 
sion of  the  writ  or  declaration  of  martial  law  by  the  Executive, 
or  by  any  other  than  the  supreme  legislative  authority.  The 
men  who  once  stood  high  on  the  list  of  American  lawyers,  such 
as  Alexander  H.  Stephens,  Albert  Pike,  and  General  Houston, 
wrote  letters  and  made  speeches  against  the  practice  until  it 
was  abandoned.  In  the  year  1862,  the  commander-in-chief  of 
the  Rebel  armies,  compelled  by  the  force  of  public  sentiment, 
published  a  general  order  disclaiming  any  right  or  claim  of 
right  to  establish  martial  law  or  suspend  the  writ  of  habeas 
corpus  without  the  authority  of  the  Rebel  Congress. 

I  said  there  was  one  exceptional  instance.  A  judge  of  the 
Supreme  Court  of  Texas,  in  the  first  excitement  of  the  Rebel- 
lion, refused  to  issue  a  writ  of  habeas  corpus  to  release  from 
military  arrest  a  citizen  charged  with  disloyalty  to  the  Rebel 
government.  He  wrote  his  opinion,  and  delivered  it;  but  he 
was  so  much  agitated  when  he  found  that  he  stood  alone  among 
judges  on  that  great  question  of  human  rights  that  he  went  to 
the  book  of  records  in  which  his  opinion  was  recorded,  and 
with  his  own  hand  plucked  the  leaves  from  the  volume  and 
destroyed  them.  He  also  destroyed  the  original  copy,  that  it 
might  never  be  put  in  type,  and,  having  destroyed  everything 
but  the  remembrance  of  it,  ended  his  life  by  suicide.  I  be- 
lieve he  alone  among  Rebel  judges  ventured  to  recognize  mar- 
tial law  declared  without  legislative  authority. 


1 72  MIUTAR  Y  COMMISSIONS. 

The  spirit  of  liberty  and  law  is  well  embodied  in  this  one  sen- 
tence of  De  Lolme :  "  The  arbitrary  discretion  of  any  man  is 
the  law  of  tyrants :  it  is  always  unknown,  it  is  different  in  dif- 
ferent men,  it  is  casual,  and  depends  upon  constitution,  temper, 
and  passion ;  in  the  best  it  is  oftentimes  caprice,  in  the  worst 
it  is  every  vice,  folly,  and  passion  to  which  human  nature  is 
liable."^  And  yet,  if  this  military  commission  could  legally 
try  these  petitioners,  its  authority  rested  only  upon  the  will  of  a 
single  man.  If  it  had  the  right  to  try  these  petitioners,  it  had 
the  right  to  try  any  civilian  in  the  United  States ;  it  had  the 
right  to  try  your  Honors,  for  you  are  civilians. 

The  learned  gentlemen  tell  us  that  necessity  justifies  martial 
law.  But  what  is  the  nature  of  that  necessity.  If,  at  this  mo- 
ment, Lee,  with  his  Rebel  army  at  one  end  of  Pennsylvania  Ave- 
nue, and  Grant,  with  the  army  of  the  Union  at  the  other,  with 
hostile  banners  and  roaring  guns,  were  approaching  this  Capi- 
tol, the  sacred  seat  of  justice  and  law,  I  have  no  doubt  they 
would  expel  your  Honors  from  the  bench,  and  the  Senate  and 
House  of  Representatives  from  their  halls.  The  jurisdiction 
of  battle  would  supersede  the  jurisdiction  of  law.  This  court 
would  be  silenced  by  the  thunders  of  war. 

If  an  earthquake  should  shake  the  city  of  Washington,  and 
tumble  this  Capitol  in  ruins  about  us,  it  would  drive  your  Hon- 
ors from  the  bench,  and,  for  the  time,  volcanic  law  would  super- 
sede the  Constitution. 

If  the  supreme  court  of  Herculaneum  or  Pompeii  had  been 
in  session  when  the  fiery  ruin  overwhelmed  those  cities,  its  au- 
thority would  have  been  suddenly  usurped  and  overthrown ;  but 
I  question  the  propriety  of  calling  that  law  which,  in  its  very 
nature,  is  a  destruction  or  suspension  of  all  law. 

From  this  review  of  the  history  and  character  of  martial  law 
I  am  warranted,  by  the  uniform  precedents  of  English  law  for 
many  centuries,  by  the  uniform  practice  of  our  fathers  during 
the  Colonial  and  Revolutionary  periods,  by  the  unanimous  de- 
cisions of  our  courts  under  the  Constitution,  and  by  the  teach- 
ings of  our  statesmen,  to  conclude,  — 

I .  That  the  Executive  has  no  authority  to  suspend  the  writ  of 
/labeas  corptis,  or  to  declare  or  administer  martial  law ;  much  less 
has  any  military  subordinate  of  the  Executive  such  authority ; 

1  Rise  and    Progress  of  the  English  Constiturion,   (London,   1838,)   Vol.   I. 


MILITAR  Y  COMMISSIONS.  1 73 

but  these  high  functions  belong  exclusively  to  the  supreme 
legislative  authority  of  the  nation. 

2.  That  if,  in  the  presence  of  great  and  sudden  danger,  and  un- 
der the  pressure  of  overwhelming  necessity,  the  chief  Executive 
should,  without  legislative  warrant,  suspend  the  writ  of  habeas 
corpus,  or  declare  martial  law,  he  must  not  look  to  the  courts 
for  justification,  but  to  the  legislature  for  indemnification. 

3.  That  no  such  necessity  can  be  pleaded  to  justify  the  trial 
of  a  civilian  by  a  military  tribunal,  when  the  legally  authorized 
civil  courts  are  open  and  unobstructed. 

It  will  be  observed  that  in  this  discussion  I  have  not  alluded 
to  the  legal  status  of  citizens  of  those  States  which  were  de- 
clared, both  by  the  legislative  and  executive  departments  of  the 
government,  to  be  in  rebellion  against  the  United  States.  It  has 
been  fully  settled,  not  only  by  the  other  co-ordinate  branches 
of  the  government,  but  by  this  court,  that  those  States  consti- 
tuted a  belligerent  government  de  facto,  against  which  the  Fed- 
eral government  might  proceed  with  all  the  appliances  of  war, 
and  might  extend  absolute  military  jurisdiction  over  every  foot 
of  rebel  territory.  But  the  military  jurisdiction  thus  conferred 
by  the  government  did  not  extend  beyond  the  territory  of  the 
rebellious  States,  except  where  the  tide  of  war  actually  swept 
beyond  those  limits,  and  by  its  flaming  presence  made  it  im- 
possible for  the  civil  courts  to  exercise  their  functions.  The 
case  before  your  Honors  comes  under  neither  of  these  condi- 
tions ;  hence,  the  laws  of  war  are  inapplicable  to  it. 

The  military  commission,  under  our  government,  is  of  recent 
origin.  It  was  instituted  by  General  Scott,  in  Mexico,  to  enable 
him,  in  the  absence  of  any  civil  authority,  to  punish  Mexican 
and  American  citizens  for  offences  not  provided  for  in  the  Rules 
and  Articles  of  War.  The  purpose  and  character  of  a  military 
commission  may  be  seen  from  his  celebrated  Order  No.  20,  pub- 
lished at  Tampico.  It  was  no  tribunal  with  authority  to  punish, 
but  merely  a  committee  appointed  to  examine  an  offender  and 
advise  the  commanding  general  what  punishment  to  inflict. 
It  is  a  rude  substitute  for  a  court  of  justice  in  the  absence  of 
civil  law. 

Even  our  own  military  authorities,  who  have  given  so  much 
prominence  to  these  commissions,  do  not  claim  for  them  the 
character  of  tribunals  established  by  law.  The  Judge  Advocate 
General  says:    **  Military  commissions  have  grown  out  of  the 


1 74  MILITAR  Y  COMMISSIONS. 

necessities  of  the  service,  but  their  powers  have  not  been  de- 
fined, nor  their  mode  of  proceeding  regulated  by  any  statute 

law In  a  military  department  the  military  commission 

is  a  substitute  for  the  ordinary  State  or  United  States  court, 
when  the  latter  is  closed  by  the  exigencies  of  war,  or  is  without  the 
jurisdiction  of  the  offence  committed."  ^ 

The  only  ground  on  which  the  learned  counsel  attempt  to 
establish  the  authority  of  the  military  commission  to  try  these 
petitioners  is  that  of  the  necessity  of  the  case.  I  answer,  there 
was  no  such  necessity.  Neither  the  Constitution  nor  Congress 
recognized  it.  I  point  to  the  Constitution  as  an  arsenal  stored 
with  ample  powers  to  meet  every  emergency  of  national  life. 
No  higher  test  of  its  completeness  can  be  imagined  than  has 
been  afforded  by  the  great  Rebellion,  which  dissolved  the  mu- 
nicipal governments  of  eleven  States,  and  consolidated  them 
into  a  gigantic  traitorous  government  de  facto,  inspired  with  the 
desperate  purpose  of  destroying  the  government  of  the  United 
States. 

From  the  beginning  of  the  Rebellion  to  its  close,  Congress,  by 
its  legislation,  kept  pace  with  the  necessities  of  the  nation.  In 
sixteen  carefully  considered  laws,  the  national  legislature  under- 
took to  provide  for  every  contingency,  and  to  arm  the  Execu- 
tive at  every  point  with  the  solemn  sanction  of  law.  Observe 
how  perfectly  the  case  of  the  petitioners  was  covered  by  the 
provisions  of  law. 

The  first  charge  against  them  was  "  conspiracy  against  the 
government  of  the  United  States."  In  the  act  approved  July 
31,  1 86 1,  that  very  crime  was  fully  defined,  and  placed  within 
the  jurisdiction  of  the  District  and  Circuit  Courts  of  the  United 
States. 

Charge  2 :  "  Affording  aid  and  comfort  to  rebels  against  the 
government  of  the  United  States."  In  the  act  approved  July 
17,  1862,  this  crime  is  set  forth  in  the  very  words  of  the  charge, 
and  it  is  provided  that  "  such  person  shall  be  punished  by  im- 
prisonment for  a  period  not  exceeding  ten  years ;  or  by  a  fine 
not  exceeding  ten  thousand  dollars,  and  by  the  liberation  of  all 
his  slaves,  if  any  he  have;  or  by  both  of  said  punishments,  at 
the  discretion  of  the  court." 

Charge  3:  "Inciting  insurrection."  In  Brightly's  Digest ^ 
there  is  compiled  from  ten  separate  acts  a  chapter  of  sixty-four 

1  Digest  of  Opinions  for  1866,  pp.  131,  133.  2  Vol.  II.  pp.  191-202. 


MILITAR  Y  COMMISSIONS.  1 75 

sections  on  insurrection,  setting  forth,  in  the  fullest  manner  pos- 
sible, every  mode  by  which  citizens  may  aid  in  insurrection,  and 
providing  for  their  trial  and  punishment  by  the  regularly  or- 
dained courts  of  the  United  States. 

Charge  4:  "  Disloyal  practices."  The  meanjng  of  this  charge 
can  only  be  found  in  the  specifications  under  it,  which  consist 
in  discouraging  enlistments  and  making  preparations  to  resist  a 
draft  designed  to  increase  the  army  of  the  United  States.  These 
offences  are  fully  defined  in  the  thirty-third  section  of  the  act 
of  March  3,  1863,  "  for  Enrolling  and  Calling  out  the  National 
Forces,"  and  in  the  twelfth  section  of  the  act  of  February  24, 
1864,  amendatory  thereof.  The  provost-marshal  is  authorized 
to  arrest  such  offenders,  but  he  must  deliver  them  over  for  trial 
to  the  civil  authorities.  Their  trial  and  punishment  are  ex- 
pressly placed  in  the  jurisdiction  of  the  District  and  Circuit 
Courts  of  the  United  States. 

Charge  5  :  **  Violations  of  the  laws  of  war,"  —  which,  according 
to  the  specifications,  consisted  of  an  attempt,  through  a  secret 
organization,  to  give  aid  and  comfort  to  rebels.  This  crime  is 
amply  provided  for  in  the  laws  referred  to  in  relation  to  the 
second  charge.  But  Congress  did  far  more  than  to  provide  for 
a  case  like  this.  Throughout  the  eleven  rebellious  States  it 
clothed  the  military  department  with  supreme  power  and  au- 
thority. State  constitutions  and  laws,  the  decrees  and  edicts  of 
courts,  were  all  superseded  by  the  laws  of  war.  Even  in  States 
not  in  rebellion,  but  where  treason  had  a  foothold,  and  hostile 
collisions  were  likely  to  occur.  Congress  authorized  the  suspen- 
sion of  the  writ  of  habeas  corpus,  and  directed  the  army  to  keep 
the  peace. 

But  Congress  went  further  still,  and  authorized  the  President, 
during  the  Rebellion,  whenever,  in  his  judgment,  the  public 
safety  should  require  it,  to  suspend  the  privilege  of  the  writ  of 
Jiahcas  corpus  in  any  State  or  Territory  of  the  United  States,  and 
order  the  arrest  of  any  persons  whom  he  might  believe  danger- 
ous to  the  safety  of  the  republic,  and  hold  them  till  the  civil 
authorities  could  examine  into  the  nature  of  their  crimes.  But 
this  act  of  March  3,  1863,  gave  no  authority  to  try  the  person 
by  any  military  tribunal,  and  it  commanded  judges  of  the  Cir- 
cuit and  District  Courts  of  the  United  States,  whenever  the 
grand  jury  had  adjourned  its  sessions,  and  found  no  indictment 
against  such  persons,  to  order  their  immediate  discharge  from 


176  MILITARY  COMMISSIONS. 

arrest.  All  these  capacious  powers  were  conferred  upon  the 
military  department,  but  there  is  no  law  on  the  statute-book  in 
which  the  tribunal  that  tried  the  petitioners  can  find  the  least 
recognition. 

I  wish  to  call  the  attention  of  your  Honors  to  a  circumstance 
showing  the  sentiment  on  this  subject  of  the  House  of  Repre- 
sentatives of  the  Thirty-eighth  Congress.  Near  the  close  of  that 
Congress,  when  the  Miscellaneous  Appropriation  Bill,  which  au- 
thorized the  disbursement  of  several  millions  of  dollars  for  the 
civil  expenditures  of  the  government,  was  under  discussion,  the 
House  of  Representatives,  having  observed  with  alarm  the  grow- 
ing tendency  to  break  down  the  barriers  of  law,  and  desiring  to 
protect  the  rights  of  citizens  as  well  as  to  preserve  the  Union, 
added  to  the  appropriation  bill  the  following  section:  ^^  And 
be  it  further  enacted,  That  no  person  shall  be  tried  by  court- 
martial  or  military  commission  in  any  State  or  Territory  where 
the  courts  of  the  United  States  are  open,  except  persons  actually 
mustered  or  commissioned  or  appointed  in  the  military  or  naval 
service  of  the  United  States,  or  rebel  enemies  charged  with  being 
spies." 

The  Section  was  debated  at  length  in  the  Senate,  and,  although 
almost  every  Senator  acknowledged  its  justice,  yet,  as  the  nation 
was  then  in  the  very  mid-whirl  and  fury  of  the  war,  it  was  feared 
that  the  Executive  might  thereby  be  crippled,  and  the  section 
was  stricken  out.  The  bill  came  back  to  the  House ;  conferences 
were  held  upon  it,  and  finally,  in  the  last  hour  of  the  session,  the 
House  deliberately  determined  that,  important  as  the  bill  was  to 
the  interests  of  the  country,  they  preferred  it  should  not  become 
a  law  if  that  section  were  stricken  out.  I  beg  leave  to  read  some 
passages  from  the  remarks  of  one  of  the  noblest,  ablest,  and 
most  patriotic  men  that  have  honored  this  nation  during  the 
war,  —  that  great  man,  so  lately  taken  from  us,  Henry  Winter 
Davis,  of  Maryland.  After  reporting  the  provisions  of  the  bill 
agreed  upon  by  the  committee  of  conference,  he  said  :  — 

"  Under  these  circumstances  it  remained  for  a  majority  of  the  House 
committee  to  determine  between  the  great  result  of  losing  an  important 
appropriation  bill,  or,  after  having  raised  a  question  of  this  magnitude, 
touching  so  nearly  the  right  of  every  citizen  to  his  personal  liberty  and 
the  very  endurance  of  republican  institutions,  and  to  insure  its  prompt 
consideration  fastened  it  on  an  appropriation  bill,  to  allow  it  to  be  stricken 
out  of  the  bill  as  a  matter  of  secondary  importance.     The  committee 


MILITARY  COMMISSIONS,  i;; 

thought  that  their  duty  to  their  constituents,  to  the  House,  and  to  them- 
selves, would  not  allow  them  to  provide  for  any  pecuniary  appropriations 
at  the  expense  of  so  grave  a  reflection  upon  the  fundamental  principles 
of  the  government 

"  The  practice  of  the  government  has  introduced  into  the  jurispnidencc 
of  the  United  States  principles  unknown  to  the  laws  of  the  United  States, 
loosely  described  under  the  general  term  of  the  rules  and  usages  of  icuir, 
and  new  crimes,  defined  by  no  law,  called  *  military  offences  * ;  and  with- 
out the  authority  of  any  statute,  constitutional  or  unconstitutional,  and 
pointing  these  laws  —  confined  by  the  usage  of  the  world  to  enemies 
in  enemies'  territory  —  against  our  own  citizens  in  our  own  territory,  has 
repeatedly  deprived  many  citizens  of  the  United  States  of  tlieir  lil)erty, 
has  condemned  many  to  death,  who  have  only  been  redeemed  from 
that  extreme  penalty  by  the  kindness  of  the  President's  heart,  and  aided 
doubdess  by  the  serious  scruples  he  cannot  but  feel  touching  the  legality 
of  the  judgment  that  assigned  them  to  death. 

"  There  have  been  many  cases  in  which  judgments  of  confinement  in 
the  penitentiary  have  been  inflicted  for  acts  not  punishable,  either  under 
the  usages  of  war  or  under  any  statute  of  the  United  States,  by  any  mili- 
tary tribunal ;  crimes  for  which  the  laws  of  the  United  States  prescribe 
the  punishment  have  been  visited  with  other  and  severer  punishments  by 
mUitary  tribunals ;  violations  of  contract  with  the  government,  real  or  im- 
puted, have  been  construed  by  these  tribunals  into  frauds,  and  punished 
as  crimes ;  excessive  bail  has  been  demanded,  and  when  furnished  im- 
pudently refused  ;  and  the  attempt  of  Congress  to  discriminate  between 
crimes  committed  by  persons  in  the  military  forces  and  citizens  not  in 
those  forces,  has  been  annulled,  and  the  very  oficnccs  it  specifically  re- 
quired to  be  tried  before  the  courts  of  the  United  States  have  been  tried 
before  military  tribunals  dependent  upon  the  will  of  the  President 

"  The  committee  remember  that  such  things  are  inconsistent  with  tiie 
endurance  of  republican  government.  The  party  which  tolerates  or 
defends  them  must  destroy  itself  or  the  republic.  They  felt  they  had 
reached  a  point  at  which  a  vote  must  be  cast  which  may  break  up  j)oliti- 
cal  parties,  or,  if  it  do  not,  will  break  up  or  save  a  great  republican 
government.  Before  these  alternatives  they  could  not  hesitate.  They 
thought  it  best,  now,  at  this  time,  to  leave  this  law  standing  as  a  broken 
dike  in  the  midst  of  the  rising  flood  of  lawless  power  around  us,  to  show 
to  this  generation  how  high  that  flood  of  lawless  power  has  risen  in  only 
three  years  of  civil  war,  as  a  warning  to  those  who  arc  to  come  after  us, 
as  an  awakening  to  those  who  are  now  with  us. 

"They  have,  therefore,  come  to  the  determination,  so  far  as  the  con- 
stitudonal  pri\ilcges  and  prerogatives  of  this  House  will  enable  them  to 
accomplish  the  result,  that  this  bill  shall  not  Ixjcome  a  law  if  these  words 
do  not  stand  as  a  part  of  it,  —  the  affirmation  by  the  representatives  of 

VOL.   I.  13 


!•* 


1 78  MILITAR  Y  COMMISSIONS. 

the  States  and  of  the  people  of  the  inalienable  birthright  of  every  Ameri- 
can citizen ;  and  on  that  question  they  appeal  from  the  judgment  of  the 
Senate  to  the  judgment  of  the  American  people." ' 

The  appeal  was  taken ;  the  bill  failed ;  and  the  record  of  its 
failure  is  an  emphatic  declaration  that  the  House  of  Represent- 
atives have  never  consented  to  the  establishment  of  any  tribu- 
nals except  those  authorized  by  the  Constitution  of  the  United 
States  and  the  laws  of  Congress. 

There  was  one  point,  suggested  rather  than  insisted  upon  by 
the  opposing  counsel,  which  it  requires  but  little  more  than 
a  statement  to  answer.     In  their  brief,  the  learned  gentlemen 
say  that,  if  the  military  tribunal  had  no  jurisdiction,  the  peti- 
tioners may  be  held  as  prisoners  captured  in  war,  and  handed 
over  by  the  military  to  the  civil   authorities,  to  be  tried  for 
their  crimes  under  the  acts  of  Congress,  and  before  the  courts 
of  the  United  States.      The  answer  to  this  is,  that  the  peti- 
tioners were  never  enlisted,  commissioned,  or  mustered  in  the 
service  of  the  Confederacy ;  nor  had  they  been  within  the  Rebel 
lines,  or  within  any  theatre  of  active  military  operations ;   nor 
had  they  been  in  any  way  recognized  by  the   Rebel   authori- 
ties as  in  their  service.     They  could  not  have  been  exchanged 
as  prisoners  of  war ;   nor,  if  all  the  charges  against  them  were 
true,  could  they  be  brought  under  the  legal  definitioo  of  spies. 
There  appears  to  be  no  ground  whatever  for  calling  them  pris- 
oners of  war.     The  suggestion  of  our  opponents,  that  the  peti- 
tioners should  be  handed  over  to  the  civil  authorities  for  trial, 
is  precisely  what  they  petitioned  for,  and  what,  according  to 
the  laws  of  Congress,  should  have  been  done.     We  do  not  ask 
that  they  shall  be  shielded  from  any  lawful   punishment,  but 
that  they  shall  not  be  unlawfully  punished,  as  they  now  are,  by 
the  sentence  of  a  tribunal  which  had  no  jurisdiction  over  cither 
their  persons  or  the  subject-matter  of  the  charges. 

The  only  color  of  authority  for  such  a  trial  was  found  in  the 
President's  proclamation  of  September  24th,  1862,  which  was 
substantially  annulled  by  the  Habeas  Corpus  Act  of  March  3d, 
1863,  and  the  subsequent  Presidential  proclamation  of  Septem- 
ber iSth,  1863.  By  these  acts,  the  military  authority  could 
only  arrest  and  hold  disaffected  persons  till  after  a  session  of 
the  United  States  District  Court. 

May  it  please  the  court,  I  have  thus  reviewed  the  principles 

*  Congressional  Globe,  March  3,  1865,  pp.  1421,  1422. 


MILITAR  Y  COMMISSIONS.  1 79 

upon  which  our  government  was  founded,  the  practice  of  the 
fathers  who  founded  it,  and  the  almost  unanimous  sentiment  of 
its  presidents,  congresses,  and  courts. 

I  have  shown  that  Congress  undertook  to  provide  for  all  the 
nece^ities  which  the  Rebellion  imposed  upon  the  nation ;  that  it 
provided  for  the  trial  of  every  crime  imputed  to  the  petitioners, 
and  pointed  out  expressly  the  mode  of  punishment.  There  is 
not  a  single  charge  or  specification  in  the  petition  before  you,  — 
not  a  single  allegation  of  crime,  —  that  is  not  expressly  pro- 
vided for  in  the  laws  of  the  United  States ;  and  the  courts  arc 
designated  before  which  such  offenders  may  be  tried.  These 
courts  were  open  during  the  trial,  and  had  never  been  disturbed 
by  the  Rebellion.  The  military  Commission  on  the  tenth  day 
of  its  session  withdrew  from  the  room  where  it  had  been  sitting, 
that  the  Circuit  Court  of  the  United  States  might  hold  its  regu- 
lar term  in  its  own  chamber.  For  the  next  ten  days  the  Commis- 
sion occupied,  by  permission,  the  chamber  of  the  Supreme  Court 
of  the  State  of  Indfana,  but  removed  to  another  hall  when  the 
regular  term  of  that  court  began.  This  military  Commission  sat 
at  a  place  two  hundred  miles  beyond  the  sound  of  a  hostile  gun, 
in  a  State  that  had  never  felt  the  touch  of  martial  law, — that  had 
never  been  defiled  by  the  tread  of  a  hostile  Rebel  foot,  except 
on  a  remote  border,  and  then  but  for  a  day.  That  State,  with  all 
its  laws  and  courts,  with  all  its  securities  of  personal  rights  and 
privileges,  is  declared  by  the  opposing  counsel  to  have  been  com- 
pletely and  absolutely  under  the  control  of  martial  law;  that  not 
only  the  Constitution  and  laws  of  Indiana,  but  the  Constitution 
and  laws  of  the  United  States,  were  wholly  suspended,  so  that 
no  writ,  injunction,  prohibition,  or  mandate  of  any  District  or 
Circuit  Court  of  the  United  States,  or  even  of  this  august  tribu- 
nal, was  of  any  binding  force  or  authority  whatever,  except  by 
the  permission  and  at  the  pleasure  of  a  military  commander. 

Such  a  doctrine,  may  it  please  the  court,  is  too  monstrous  to 
be  tolerated  for  a  moment;  and  I  trust  and  believe  that,  when 
this  cause  shall  have  been  heard  and  considered,  it  will  receive 
its  just  and  final  condemnation.  Your  decision  will  mark  an  era 
in  American  history.  The  just  and  final  settlement  of  this  great 
question  will  take  a  high  place  among  the  great  achievements 
which  have  immortalized  this  decade.  It  will  establish  forever 
this  truth,  of  inestimable  value  to  us  and  to  mankind,  that  a 
republic  can  wield  the  vast  enginery  of  war  without  breaking 


l8o  MILITARY  COMMISSIONS. 

down  the  safeguards  of  liberty;  can  suppress  insurrection,  and 
put  down  rebellion,  however  formidable,  without  destroying  the 
bulwarks  of  law;  can,  by  the  might  of  its  armed  millions,  pre- 
serve and  defend  both  nationality  and  liberty.  Victories  on  the 
field  were  of  priceless  value,  for  they  plucked  the  life  of  tjie  re- 
public out  of  the  hands  of  its  enemies ;  but 

*•  Peace  hath  her  victories 
No  less  renowned  than  war,** 

and  if  the  protection  of  law  shall,  by  your  decision,  be  extended 
over  every  acre  of  our  peaceful  territory,  you  will  have  rendered 
the  great  decision  of  the  century. 

When  Pericles  had  made  Greece  immortal  in  arts  and  arms, 
in  liberty  and  law,  he  invoked  the  genius  of  Phidias  to  devise  a 
monument  which  should  symbolize  the  beauty  and  glory  of 
Athens.  That  artist  selected  for  his  theme  the  tutelar  divinity 
of  Athens,  the  Jove-born  goddess,  protectress  of  arts  and  arms, 
of  industry  and  law,  who  typified  the  Greek  conception  of  com- 
posed, majestic,  unrelenting  force.  He  erected  on  the  heights 
of  the  Acropolis  a  colossal  statue  of  Minerva,  armed  with  spear 
and  helmet,  which  towered  in  awful  majesty  above  the  sur- 
rounding temples  of  the  gods.  Sailors  on  far-off  ships  beheld 
the  crest  and  spear  of  the  goddess,  and  bowed  with  reverent 
awe.  To  every  Greek  she  was  the  symbol  of  power  and  glory. 
But  the  Acropolis,  with  its  temples  and  statues,  is  now  a  heap 
of  ruins.  The  visible  gods  have  vanished  in  the  clearer  light  of 
modern  civilization.  We  cannot  restore  the  decayed  emblems 
of  ancient  Greece ;  but  it  is  in  your  power,  O  Judges,  to  erect 
in  this  citadel  of  our  liberties  a  monument  more  lasting  than 
brass,  —  invisible  indeed  to  the  eye  of  flesh,  but  visible  to  the 
eye  of  the  spirit  as  the  awful  form  and  figure  of  Justice,  crown- 
ing and  adorning  the  republic ;  rising  above  the  storms  of  polit- 
ical strife,  above  the  din  of  battle,  above  the  earthquake  shock 
of  rebellion;  seen  from  afar,  and  hailed  as  protector  by  the 
oppressed  of  all  nations ;  dispensing  equal  blessings,  and  cover- 
ing with  the  protecting  shield  of  law  the  weakest,  the  humblest, 
the  meanest,  and,  until  declared  by  solemn  law  unworthy  of 
protection,  the  guiltiest  of  its  citizens. 


At  the,  second  session  of  the  Thirty-eighth  Congress,  a  resolution  was 
adopted,  directing  the  Military  Committee  to  "  inquire  and  report  to  the 
House  what  legislation  or  action,  if  any,  is  necessary  to  secure  to  persons 


MILITARY  COMMISSIONS.  i8i 

arrested  and  imprisoned  by  military  authority  a  prompt  examination  into 
the  causes  of  the  arrest,  and  their  discharge  if  there  be  no  adequate 
cause  for  their  detention,  and  a  speedy  trial  where  there  is  such  cause.'* 
Upon  a  motion  to  reconsider  this  resolution,  January  i8,  1865,  M^"- 
Garfield  said :  — 

I  WISH  to  make  two  observations.  First  of  all,  I  agree  with 
what  the  gentleman  from  Maryland  ^  has  just  said;  and  in  illus- 
tration of  what  I  desire  to  say,  I  call  attention  to  a  bill  that 
passed  the  House  last  session,  but  did  not  pass  the  Senate,  and 
which,  in  my  judgment,  is  vitally  important  as  a  means  to  pre- 
serve the  independence  of  the  officers  of  our  armies.  Early  in 
the  war,  it  will  be  remembered,  Congress,  for  good  reasons, 
gave  to  the  President  the  power  of  summary  dismissal  when  he 
believed  the  public  service  would  be  subserved  thereby.  At 
that  time  the  army  was  full  of  traitors,  and  it  was  necessary  that 
by  a  more  summary  process  than  court-martial  they  should  be 
driven  out 

But  it  was  thought  last  winter  by  the  House  of  Representa- 
tives, that  the  danger  had  so  far  passed  that  we  might  safely 
repeal  the  law.  Important  as  that  law  has  been  in  some  re- 
spects,—  and  none  will  doubt  its  value  and  necessity  at  the  time 
of  its  enactment,  —  I  am  satisfied  that  in  other  respects  it  has 
had  a  very  unfortunate  influence.  It  has  gone  very  far  toward 
weakening  the  manliness  and  independence  of  the  officers  in  the 
army.  If,  sir,  I  am  in  the  army,  and  know  that  my  superior 
officer  can  make  such  representations  as  will  cause  me  to  be 
dismissed  without  a  hearing  and  without  a  trial,  how  strong  is 
the  tendency  of  that  knowledge  to  make  me  a  timid,  subservient 
tool !  The  whole  tendency  of  it  is  to  take  away  the  personal 
independence  and  manliness  of  the  subordinate  officer,  because 
he  has  no  guard  for  his  standing  and  position  except  the  favor 
of  his  superior,  —  no  right  to  demand,  as  the  American  officer 
always  had  in  former  times,  that  he  should  be  speedily  and 
fairly  tried  by  a  jury  of  his  peers.  For  this  reason  we  passed 
a  bill  last  winter,  by  a  very  large  majority,  —  almost  unani- 
mously, I  believe,  —  to  repeal  the  law  giving  this  power  to  the 
President.  That  bill  is  dying  a  lingering  death  at  the  other 
end  of  the  Capitol.     I  believe  that  the  bill  ought  to  become 

a  law. 

I  desire,  in  the  second  place,  to  call  attention  to  the  fact  that 

it  is  now  the  law,  and  has  been  since  the  foundation  of  our  gov- 

1  Mr.  Davis. 


1 82  MILITAR  Y  COMMISSIONS. 

ernment,  that  when  an  officer  of  the  army  is  arrested  for  any- 
supposed  crime  or  misdemeanor,  he  shall  be  held  in  arrest  —  it 
may  be  in  close  confinement  and  under  guard,  according  to  the 
enormity  of  the  supposed  offence  —  no  longer  than  eight  days 
without  being  furnished  with  a  copy  of  the  charges  against  him. 
The  law  also  allows  him  a  speedy  trial. 

Now,  without  trenching  upon  the  business  in  which  the  Com- 
mittee on  Military  Affairs  was  engaged  this  morning,  I  will  say 
that  one  officer  at  least  has  been  in  confinement  for  five  months 
within  sight  of  this  Capitol.  Both  he  and  his  keeper  declare 
that  he  has-  not  been  furnished  with  a  copy  of  the  charges 
against  him.  He  says  tliat  he  has  again  and  again  demanded 
in  vain  to  know  with  what  crime  he  was  charged.  He  is  a  man 
who  bears  upon  his  person  honorable  scars  received  in  the  ser- 
vice of  his  country ;  he  is  a  colonel ;  and  the  vengeance  of  some 
one  fell  upon  him,  like  a  bolt  from  a  clear  sky.  He  declares 
that  he  knows  no  reason  for  it  and  can  learn  none.  An  agent 
of  the  War  Department,  an  officer  unknown  to  the  laws  and 
Constitution  of  the  country,  lays  his  hand  upon  a  man,  puts 
him  in  prison,  where  he  is  kept  until  said  agent,  or  some  power 
above  him,  is  pleased  to  release  him.  There  are  plenty  of  al- 
leged cases  where  officers  and  citizens,  after  being  confined  for 
a  long  period,  have  been  allowed  to  go  out  without  a  word  of 
explanation  concerning  either  the  arrest  or  the  discharge. 

I  ask  the  House  of  Representatives  whether  that  kind  of  prac- 
tice is  to  grow  up  under  this  government,  and  no  man  is  to  raise 
his  voice  against  it,  or  make  any  inquiry  concerning  it,  lest 
some  one  should  say  he  is  factious,  unfriendly  to  the  War  De- 
partment, and  opposing  the  Administration.  Gentlemen,  if  we 
are  not  men  in  our  places  here,  let  us  stop  our  ears  to  all  com- 
plaints ;  let  every  department  do  as  it  pleases ;  and  in  meekness 
and  in  silence  let  us  vote  whatever  appropriations  are  asked 
for.  I  do  not  say,  for  I  do  not  know,  that  the  head  of  any 
department  is  responsible  for  these  things,  or  knows  them.  It 
may  be  they  have  been  done  by  subordinates.  It  may  be  the 
heads  of  departments  are  not  cognizant  of  the  facts.  I  make 
no  accusations ;  but  I  do  say,  that  it  is  our  business  to  see  that 
the  laws  be  respected,  and  that  if  a  man  has  no  powerful  friend 
in  court  he  shall  at  least  find  the  Congress  of  the  United  States 
his  friend.     I  hope  the  resolution  will  not  be  reconsidered. 


THE   PUBLIC  DEBT  AND   SPECIE 

PAYMENTS. 

SPEECH  DELIVERED  IN  THE  HOUSE  OF  REPRESENTATIVES, 

March  i6,  1866. 


In  the  Thirty-eighth  Congress,  Mr.  Garfield  was  a  member  of  the 
Committee  on  Military  Affairs ;  in  the  Thirty-ninth,  he  was  transferred, 
at  his  own  request,  to  the  Committee  of  Ways  and  Means.  This  transfer 
marks  a  period  in  his  mental  history,  and  in  the  history  of  his  public 
life.  Now  began  his  services  in  the  field  of  economical  discussion  and 
legislation.  "  The  Public  Debt  and  Specie  Payments  "  was  the  first  of 
his  Congressional  speeches  on  this  class  of  subjects.  From  this  time  on, 
he  bore  a  prominent  part  in  the  discussion  of  loans,  banks,  taxation,  tariff, 
paper  money,  and  resumption,  as  these  questions  came  before  Congress 
and  the  country.  As  many  of  these  questions  were  but  phases  of  one 
great  question  —  as  they  grew  out  of  the  same  general  facts  —  it  will  be 
well  here  to  set  those  facts  down  once  for  all :  —  i.  The  enormous  ex- 
penditures of  the  war.  2.  The  imposition  of  heavy  taxation.  3.  The 
creation  of  a  great  public  debt.  4.  The  abandonment  of  specie  pay- 
ments, and  the  issue  by  the  national  Treasury  of  legal-tender  paper 
money.  5.  The  national  banks,  the  creation  of  which  involved  the 
destruction  of  the  old  State  banks  of  issue,  and  the  assertion  of  exclusive 
jurisdiction  over  bank-note  issues  on  the  part  of  the  general  government. 
6.  The  over-issue  and  consequent  depreciation  of  the  currency. 

The  legal-tender  notes  and  the  national  banks  were  new  fiscal  instru- 
ments to  the  American  people.  Of  the  two  acts  creating  them,  the 
Legal  Tender  Act  was  by  far  the  more  radical  and  dangerous  measure. 
It  involved  a  complete  reversal  of  the  national  policy,  since  from  the  day 
that  the  Constitution  went  into  effect  gold  and  silver  had  constituted  the 
sole  tenders  for  debt.  This  reversal  of  policy  was  justified  at  the  time 
by  alleging,  (i.)  That  the  government  could  not  maintain  specie  pay- 
ments through  the  war,  but  must  use  a  cheaper  money ;  and  (2.)  That 
Congress  had  the  constitutional  power,  in  time  of  war,  to  make  paper  a 


1 84  THE  PUBLIC  DEBT  AND  SPECIE  PA  YMENTS, 

legal  tender.  Let  it  be  noted  that  this  power  was  expressly  called  a  war 
power.  Not  only  was  the  power  thus  limited,  but  it  was  held  that,  when 
the  war  was  over,  it  would  be  the  duty  of  the  government  to  return  to 
coin  payments  at  the  earliest  practicable  moment.  The  paper  promises 
of  the  government  —  whether  bonds  or  legal- tender  notes  —  must  then 
be  redeemed  in  coin. 

The  war  over,  the  President,  Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  and  others 
who  remembered  and  respected  the  promises  of  1862  and  1863,  thought 
that  steps  should  immediately  be  taken  in  the  direction  of  resumption. 
March  3,  1865,  an  act  was  approved  which  authorized  the  funding  in 
six-per-cent  gold  bonds  of  the  interest-bearing  obligations  of  the  govern- 
ment. At  the  opening  of  the  next  session,  a  more  decided  step  was 
proposed;  viz.  to  fund  its  non-interest-bearing  obligations.  February  i, 
1866,  a  bill  was  reported  from  the  Committee  of  Ways  and  Means  that, 
after  amendment,  read  thus  :  — 

"  Be  it  enacted  by  the  Senate  and  House  of  Representatives  of  the 
United  States  of  America  in  Congress  assembled,  That  the  act  entitled 
*  An  Act  to  provide  ways  and  means  to  support  the  government,*  ap- 
proved March  3,  1865,  shall  be  extended  and  construed  to  authorize  the 
Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  at  his  discretion,  to  receive  any  Treasury  notes 
or  other  obligations,  issued  under  any  act  of  Congress,  whether  bearing 
interest  or  not,  in  exchange  for  any  description  of  bonds  authorized  by 
the  act  to  which  this  is  an  amendment ;  and  also  to  dispose  of  any  de- 
scription of  bonds  authorized  by  said  act,  either  in  the  United  States  or 
elsewhere,  to  such  an  amount,  in  such  manner,  and  at  such  rates  as  he 
may  think  advisable,  for  lawful  money  of  the  United  States,  or  for  any 
Treasury  notes,  certificates  of  indebtedness,  or  certificates  of  deposit,  or 
other  representatives  of  value,  which  have  been  or  which  may  be  issued 
under  any  act  of  Congress,  the  proceeds  thereof  to  be  used  for  retiring 
Treasury  notes  or  other  obligations  issued  under  any  act  of  Congress ; 
but  nothing  herein  contained  shall  be  construed  to  authorize  any  in- 
crease of  the  public  debt :  Pnnnded^  That  the  act  to  which  this  is  an 
amendment  shall  continue  in  full  force  in  all  its  provisions,  except  as 
modified  by  this  act." 

This  was  a  contractive  measure.  Its  authors  and  defenders  desired  as 
early  a  return  to  specie  payments  as  was  practicable ;  and  they  held  that 
this  end  could  not  be  reached  \vithout  reducing  the  volume  of  the  cur- 
rency. Hence  it  was  a  proposition  to  fund  greenbacks,  as  well  as  to 
provide  for  other  obligations  of  the  government  as  they  should  mature. 
It  was  opposed  on  various  grounds,  but  mainly  because,  as  was  held,  it 
would  disturb  the  business  of  the  country.  Mr.  McCulloch,  Secretary 
of  the  Treasury,  was  known  to  be  a  resumption ist  and  a  contractionist ; 
and  it  was  well  known  that  he  would  use  whatever  power  the  law  gave 
him  to  carry  out  his  ideas.     The  bill  failed  in  the  House,  but  was  re- 


THE  PUBLIC  DEBT  AND  SPECIE  PAYMENTS,  185 

considered  and  recommitted  to  the  Committee  of  Ways  and  Means.  It 
came  back  to  the  House,  with  certain  important  restrictions  and  limita- 
tions. In  the  new  form  the  bill  passed  both  Houses,  and  was  approved, 
April  12, 1866.  This  proviso  was  the  most  important  of  the  new  features 
of  the  bill :  "  Provided^  That  of  United  States  notes  not  more  than  ten 
million  of  dollars  may  be  retired  and  cancelled  within  six  months  from 
the  passage  of  this  act,  and  thereafter  not  more  than  four  million  of 
doll2urs  in  any  one  month." 


"  Of  all  the  contrivances  for  cheating  the  laboring  classes  of  mankind,  none  has  been  more 
effectual  than  that  which  deludes  them  with  [irredeemable]  paper  money."  —  Danisl  Webster. 

MR.  SPEAKER,  —  After  the  long  and  spirited  contest  on 
this  bill,  I  shall  do  little  beyond  making  as  plain  a  state- 
ment as  I  can  of  the  great  financial  problem  now  before  the 
country  for  solution.  The  bill  relates  to  two  leading  points  in 
that  problem,  viz. :  — 

1.  To  our  indebtedness  that  shall  accrue  from  time  to  time  in 
the  course  of  the  next  three  years. 

2.  To  our  currency  and  its  relation  to  the  standard  of  value. 
I  shall  notice  these  in  the  order  that  I  have  named  them. 
Several  gentlemen  have  said,  in  the  progress  of  this  debate, 

that  what  might  have  been  a  very  proper  financial  measure  in 
time  of  war  might  be  a  very  dangerous  and  unnecessary  one 
in  time  of  peace ;  that  the  vast  powers  proposed  to  be  given  to 
the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  in  this  bill  are  powers  justifiable 
only  in  time  of  great  public  danger,  as  in  the  late  war. 

Now  I  beg  to  remind  gentlemen  that  the  financial  problems 
before  this  country  are  becoming  greater  since  the  war  than 
they  were  during  its  continuance.  In  the  midst  of  the  war, 
when  the  blood  of  the  nation  was  up,  —  when  patriotism  was 
aroused,  and  the  people  were  determined  to  put  down  the 
Rebellion  and  preserve  the  republic  at  all  hazards,  —  when  the 
last  man  and  the  last  dollar  were  oft'ered  a  willing  sacrifice,  —  it 
was  comparatively  easy  to  pass  financial  bills  and  raise  millions 
of  money.  But  now,  when  wc  are  to  gather  up  all  the  pledges 
and  promises  of  four  terrible  years,  and  redeem  them  out  of  the 
solid  resources  of  the  people  in  time  of  peace,  the  problem  is 
far  more  difficult.  To  solve  it  successfully  requires  greater 
exertion,  and  perhaps  even  greater  financial  ability,  than  would 
be  requisite  were  the  war  still  raging. 


1 86  THE  PUBLIC  DEBT  AND  SPECIE  PAYMENTS. 

What  is  the  amount  of  indebtedness  to  be  met,  and  when 
must  it  be  met?  To  this  question  I  invite  the  careful  and 
earnest  attention  of  the  House.  I  shall  give  the  official  state- 
ment of  the  amount  of  our  total  indebtedness,  and  also  of  that 
portion  soon  to  become  due.  The  amount  of  our  public  debt 
on  the  first  day  of  this  month  was  $2,7ii,850,ocx).  Less  than 
half  of  this  amount  is  funded.  Within  the  next  three  years 
$i,6oo,CX»,CX»  of  this  debt  will  fall  due,  and  will  be  presented 
at  the  counter  of  the  Treasury  Department  for  payment.  That 
payment  must  be  promptly  made,  or  our  paper  goes  to  protest 
and  our  credit  is  broken.  I  hold  in  my  hand  an  official  table 
showing  the  amount  of  our  indebtedness  that  matures  during 
each  half-year  for  the  next  two  years,  from  which,  after  a  word 
of  explanation,  I  will  read. 

There  was  on  the  last  day  of  February,  1 866,  a  portion  of 
our  debt  in  the  form  of  a  temporary  loan  to  the  amount  of 
$ii9»33S>i94-SO>  payable  at  the  option  of  the  lender  after  ten 
days'  notice-  It  would  hardly  be  fair  to  reckon  that  whole 
amount  as  payable  within  the  first  six  months,  yet  as  it  may  be 
called  for  at  any  time,  and  is  to  the  nation  the  least  desirable 
form  of  loan,  it  must  be  added  to  the  statement  of  indebtedness 
soon  to  be  met.  With  this  explanation,  and  supposing  the 
payment  of  this  loan  to  be  demanded  within  the  next  six 
months,  I  call  attention  to  the  facts  exhibited  in  the  table. 

Between  this  and  the  30th  of  June  next,  we  must  pay, 
in  addition  to  the  regular  expenditure  of  the  government, 
$138,674,874.82.  During  the  six  months  ending  December  31, 
1866,  we  must  pay  $47,665,000.  During  the  six  months  ending 
June  30,  1867,  we  must  pay  $8,471,000.  During  the  six  months 
ending  December  31,  1867,  we  must  pay  $350,000,000.  During 
the  six  months  ending  June  30,  1868,  we  must  pay  $369,415,250. 
During  the  six  months  ending  December  31,  1868,  we  must  pay 
$287,564,482.  So  that  between  this  and  the  assembling  of  the 
next  Congress  there  must  be  paid  over  the  counter  of  the 
Treasury,  besides  the  ordinary  expenses  of  the  government, 
$1,201,790,606.82. 

I  am  sure  that  every  member  of  this  House  acknowledges 
that  this  is  a  sacred  obligation,  every  dollar  of  which  must  be 
promptly  met  the  day  it  is  due.  I  take  it  for  granted  that  no 
man  here  will  consent  that  a  single  dollar  of  it  shall  go  to  pro- 
test, or  that  any  act  of  this  House  shall  bear  the  least  taint  or 


THE  PUBLIC  DEBT  AND  SPECIE  PAYMENTS.  187 

color  of  repudiation.    We  must,  therefore,  meet  these  obliga- 
tions.    How  can  it  be  done? 

Mr.  Spaulding.  Does  not  this  amount  of  indebtedness  include  the 
seven-thirty  bonds  for  which  the  government  may  issue  five-twenty 
bonds? 

My  colleague  is  correct  Most  of  the  seven-thirty  bonds  are 
included  in  this  amount,  but  they  must  be  redeemed  in  money 
or  five-twenty  bonds  at  the  holder's  option.  The  Secretary  has 
no  power  to  compel  an  exchange. 

As  I  have  already  stated,  there  will  be  presented  for  payment 
in  some  form  before  the  assembling  of  the  Fortieth  Congress 
$1,201,000,000,  in  addition  to  the  ordinary  expenditures  of  the 
government  How  are  these  demands  to  be  met?  With  what 
power  is  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  clothed  to  enable  him 
to  meet  this  enormous  obligation? 

There  are  two  clauses  in  the  existing  laws  which  give  him 
some  power. 

The  first  and  chief  is  found  in  the  last  clause  of  the  first  sec- 
tion of  the  act  of  the  3d  of  March,  1865,  which  has  been  so 
ably  discussed  by  my  colleague  on  the  committee.^  He  has 
shown  us  —  and  no  man,  I  believe,  will  venture  to  deny  the 
correctness  of  the  position  —  that  the  clause  gives  the  Sec- 
retary of  the  Treasury  power  merely  to  exchange  one  kind  of 
paper  for  another,  but  only  with  the  consent  of  the  holder.  If 
the  holder  says,  **  I  will  not  take  your  long  bonds,  I  demand 
my  money,"  his  money  he  must  have.  If,  when  the  seven- 
thirty  bond  is  due,  the  state  of  the  market  makes  money  more 
valuable  than  a  six-pcr-cent  bond  for  twenty  years,  the  holder 
will  of  course  demand  money.  He  will  of  course  take  the 
option  most  profitable  to  himself  and  least  advantageous  to  the 
government. 

The  other  clause  is  found  in  the  act  of  June  30,  1864. 
The  second  section  of  that  act  allows  the  Secretary  of  the 
Treasury  to  take  up  the  various  kinds  of  paper  representing 
indebtedness,  and  issue  therefor  compound-interest  notes  or 
seven-thirty  bonds.  These  two  descriptions  of  paper  are  of  all 
others  the  most  expensive  for  the  government  to  issue.  I  say, 
then,  concerning  this  power,  it  is  one  that  the  Secretary  ought 
not  to  use.     It  would  be  a  calamity  should  he  be  compelled  to 

^  Mr.  Allison,  of  Iowa. 


1 88  THE  PUBLIC  DEBT  AND  SPECIE  PAYMENTS. 

use  it.  It  would  be  a  calamity,  in  the  first  place,  were  he 
compelled  to  issue  in  exchange  for  maturing  indebtedness  these 
compound-interest  notes,  for  they  are  the  most  costly  paper 
the  government  can  issue  to  its  creditors,  —  notes  that  are  pay- 
able in  three  years  with  interest  compounded  every  six  months. 
It  is  enough  to  break  the  financial  strength  of  any  nation. 
Again,  by  the  provisions  of  this  act  the  Secretary  may  issue 
seven-thirty  bonds  in  exchange  for  matured  indebtedness. 
They  are  short  bonds.  They  now  fill  the  market  more  than 
any  others,  and  will  be  maturing  after  about  twelve  months.  If 
we  pay  these  out,  it  will  be  only  for  the  purpose  of  taking  up 
others  of  the  same  kind.  Even  this  can  be  done  only  at  the 
option  of  the  holder. 

I  say,  therefore,  that  the  Secretary  is  substantially  limited  in 
his  power  to  these  two  clauses  of  the  law :  one  that  he  ought 
not  to  use,  and  cannot  use  without  great  disadvantage  to  the 
public  credit;  and  the  other  that  he  can  use  only  for  the  pur- 
pose of  an  even  exchange,  and  that,  too,  by  the  consent  of 
the  holders.  Therefore  he  has  but  little  power  or  discretion  in 
funding  the  national  debt.  If  Congress  gives  him  no  more 
power,  the  Treasury  will  be  at  the  mercy  of  the  public  creditors, 
who  may  combine  to  control  the  stock  market,  and  compel  the 
Secretary  to  sacrifice  the  public  credit  to  the  gamblers  of  Wall 
Street.  I  hold  it  demonstrable  that,  if  you  leave  the  Secretary 
of  the  Treasury  where  he  is,  you  abandon  him  to  the  mercy  of 
the  holders  of  the  public  securities,  who,  if  they  please,  can 
utterly  break  him  down,  and  send  the  paper  of  the  government 
to  protest. 

Under  these  circumstances,  it  was  the  duty  of  the  Committee 
of  Ways  and  Means  to  inquire  what  further  power  was  neces- 
sary to  enable  the  Secretary  to  meet  these  obligations  as  they 
mature,  and  put  the  debt  into  the  form  of  long  bonds  at  a  lower 
rate  of  interest  than  we  now  pay.  The  committee  believe  that 
the  bill  now  before  the  House  gives  the  Secretary  no  more 
power  than  is  needful  for  the  accomplishment  of  the  work  be- 
fore him.  With  that  power  the  Secretary  believes  he  can  do 
the  work.     Without  it  he  cannot. 

If  the  plan  now  proposed  be  not  adopted,  it  is  incumbent  upon 
this  House  to  offer  one  that  will  accomplish  the  work.  It  is  not 
enough  that  gentlemen  are  able  to  point  out  defects  in  this  bill, 
and  raise  objections  to  it;  but  it  is  incumbent  upon  them  to 


THE  PUBLIC  DEBT  AND  SPECIE  PAYMENTS.  189 

show  us  a  plan  which  will  acccomplish  the  desired  result  and 
not  be  liable  to  equally  grave  objections. 

Now,  sir,  what  has  been  proposed  as  a  substitute  for  this  bill  ? 
The  distingruished  gentleman  from  Pennsylvania^  has  offered  a 
substitute.  I  hope  no  one  misunderstands  his  purpose.  He  is 
not  only  opposed  to  the  pending  bill,  but  he  is  unwilling  to  give 
the  Secretary  any  additional  power.  He  is  not  only  unwilling 
to  give  the  Secretary  additional  power,  but  he  desires  to  take 
away  much  of  the  power  already  granted.  His  substitute  con- 
sists of  the  committee's  bill,  with  every  vital  provision  cut  out, 
and  the  following  disabling  section  added :  "  Sec.  2.  That  all 
laws  or  parts  of  laws  which  authorize  the  Secretary  of  the  Treas- 
ury to  fund  or  withdraw  from  circulation  any  United  States  legal- 
tender  notes  not  bearing  interest  be,  and  the  same  are  hereby, 
repealed."  If  this  substitute  shall  become  a  law,  I  desire  it  to 
be  remembered  that  the  House  must  take  the  responsibility  of 
the  disastrous  results  which  may  follow.  I  have  undertaken  to 
state  the  first  great  duty  which  rests  upon  the  Secretary  of  the 
Treasury;  namely,  to  meet  the  maturing  indebtedness  of  the 
government.  Before  leaving  the  first  point,  however,  let  me 
say  that  the  committee  have  not  been  willing  to  leave  the  Secre- 
tary merely  the  barren  power  of  exchanging  one  form  of  paper 
for  another,  bond  for  bond,  dollar  for  dollar,  and  that  only  at 
the  option  of  the  holder.  It  is  proposed  in  this  bill  that  he  be 
permitted  to  put  a  loan  on  the  market,  to  sell  bonds  for  money, 
and  with  that  money  redeem  the  old  bonds  as  they  mature. 
Even  if  we  had  no  desire  to  limit  the  volume  of  paper  currency, 
it  would  be  necessary  to  give  him  this  power  for  the  purpose  of 
funding  the  debt. 

But  I  hasten  to  the  consideration  of  the  currency.  I  call 
attention  to  the  fact  that  Congress  has  established  a  policy, 
which  is  now  nearly  four  years  old,  in  reference  to  the  circulat- 
ing medium  of  the  country.  Five  years  ago  there  were  in  the 
United  States  over  sixteen  hundred  banks,  based  on  any  and 
every  kind  of  security,  and  issuing  currency  in  such  amounts 
as  were  authorized  by  the  laws  of  the  various  States.  The  notes 
of  one  bank  were  based  on  real  estate ;  of  another,  on  State 
stock ;  of  another,  on  United  States  stock.  Each  had  its  pecu- 
liar basis,  its  peculiar  kind  of  currency,  and  regulated  the  amount 
of  its  circulation  according  to  its  own  rules  and  opinions.     Six- 

1  Mr.  Stevens. 


I90   THE  PUBLIC  DEBT  AND  SPECIE  PA  YMENTS. 

teen  hundred  independent  corporations  were  tinkering  at  the  cur- 
rency. The  result  was,  that  a  paper  dollar  in  Ohio,  though  worth 
one  hundred  cents  in  gold  at  home,  would  pass  for  only  ninety 
or  ninety-five  cents  in  California  or  Massachusetts.  A  Massa- 
chusetts dollar  would  fare  equally  hard  in  California.  A  paper 
dollar  was  worth  its  face  in  gold  only  in  the  immediate  locality 
of  its  issue. 

In  the  progress  of  the  war  against  the  rebellion,  there  was 
adopted  a  system  of  national  banks  based  on  a  uniform  security, 
—  the  bonds  of  the  United  States,  —  so  that  a  paper  dollar  is- 
sued in  Ohio  is  worth  no  less  when  it  reaches  Massachusetts. 
It  was  not,  however,  thought  prudent  by  the  Thirty-seventh  and 
Thirty-eighth  Congresses  to  make  the  United  States  govern- 
ment a  banker  for  the  people,  with  arbitrary  power  to  regulate 
the  currency  as  it  pleased.  It  was  thought  to  be  dangerous  to 
repeat  the  history  of  the  United  States  Bank  of  thirty  years  ago ; 
and  therefore  it  was  resolved  that  a  national  bank  system,  based 
on  the  bonds  of  the  United  States,  and  regulated  by  the  ne- 
cessities of  trade,  should  be  the  established  policy  of  the  gov- 
ernment. The  greenback  currency  was  issued  only  as  a  war 
measure,  to  last  during  the  necessities  of  the  war,  then  to  be 
withdrawn,  and  give  place  to  the  national  bank  currency. 

The  war  is  now  ended ;  and  unless  we  mean  to  abolish  the 
national  bank  system,  and  make  the  government  itself  a  per- 
manent banker,  we  must  retire  from  the  banking  business,  and 
give  place  to  the  system  already  adopted.  Unless  gentlemen 
are  now  ready  to  abandon  entirely  the  national  bank  system, 
they  must  consent  that  ultimately  the  greenback  circulation 
shall  be  withdrawn,  and  that  the  notes  of  the  national  banks 
shall  furnish  a  paper  currency  which,  together  with  gold,  shall 
constitute  the  circulating  medium  of  the  country.  The  com- 
mittee have  proceeded  on  the  belief  that  the  national  bank  sys- 
tem is  to  be  the  permanent  system  of  this  country,  and  that  the 
greenback  circulation  was  only  incidental  to  the  necessities  of 
war,  and  that  with  the  removal  of  these  necessities  it  was  to  be 
withdrawn. 

Shall  we  return  to  specie  payments?  and  if  so,  when  and 
how?  The  President,  in  his  late  annual  message,  has  expressed 
clearly  and  determinedly  the  purpose  of  the  executive  depart- 
ment of  the  government  td  return  at  the  earliest  practicable 
moment  to  the  solid  basis  of  gold  and  silver.     The  Secretary  of 


TJStE  PUBLIC  DEBT  AND  SPECIE  PAYMENTS,   191 

thq  Treasury  in  his  report  sets  forth,  with  very  great  clear- 
ness and  ability,  the  importance  of  an  early  return  to  specie 
payments.  And  this  House,  on  the  i8th  of  December  last, 
with  but  six  dissenting  votes,  not  only  declared  itself  in  favor 
of  returning  as  speedily  as  practicable  to  a  specie  basis,  but 
also  declared  that  the  currency  must  be  contracted  as  a  means 
of  resumption. 

Now,  how  shall  this  be  accomplished  ?  By  what  lever  can  the 
financial  machinery  be  so  moved  as  to  effect  the  object  so  much 
desired  by  every  department  of  the  government?  I  answer, 
that  the  only  lever  in  our  hands  strong  enough  to  lift  the  burden 
and  overcome  every  obstacle  is  our  power  over  the  greenback 
and  fractional  currency.  In  the  first  place,  they  constitute 
$450,000,000  of  the  volume  of  the  currency.  In  the  second 
place,  they  underlie  the  national  bank  system,  and  constitute 
the  reserves  required  by  law. 

It  has  been  said  in  this  debate,  that  the  circulation  is  not 
redundant;  that  we  have  now  no  more  paper  money  than  the 
business  of  the  country  requires;  that  the  rate  of  interest  is 
high,  the  money  market  stringent,  and  prices  greatly  advanced. 
I  hold  it  demonstrable  that  our  redundant  currency  is  the  chief 
cause  of  the  high  prices  and  the  stringent  money  market. 

I  know  that  figures  are  not  always  the  best  index  of  the  finan- 
cial situation.  If  they  were,  I  might  show  that  less  than  three 
hundred  million  dollars  furnished  the  circulation  of  this  country 
before  the  war,  and  that  now  we  have  more  than  a  tliousanrl 
million.  I  need  only  refer  to  the  hornbooks  of  financial  sci- 
ence to  show  that  the  only  sure  test  of  the  redundancy  of  paj)cr 
money  is  its  convertibility  into  coin  at  the  will  of  the  holder, 
and  that  its  redundancy  will  inevitably  increase  prices.  On  the 
latter  proposition  I  will  read  a  sentence  from  the  highest  livin^j 
authority  in  political  economy,  John  Stuart  Mill:  **  That  an  in- 
crease of  the  quantity  of  money  raises  prices,  and  a  diminution 
lowers  them,  is  the  most  elementary  proposition  in  the  theory 
of  currency,  and  without  it  we  should  have  no  key  to  any  of 
the  others."  * 

Mjl  Prjce.  I  want  to  ask  the  gentleman  from  Ohio  whether  there  is 
any  more  ojrrency  in  circulation  now  than  six  months  ago.  In  short,  I 
want  to  know  whether  there  has  not  been  more  currency  in  circubfion 
every  day  of  the  week,  and  ever>'  week  of  the  month,  for  the  last  six 

>  Political  Economy,  Vol-  II   p.  i5  /Boston,  1843^. 


192  THE  PUBLIC  DEBT  AND  SPECIE  PAYMENTS, 

months,  —  and  has  it  not  been  increasing?  I  want  to  know  whether 
it  is  not  equally  true,  that  gold  has  been  coming  down  steadily,  certainly, 
gradually,  surely ;  and  not  only  that,  but  that  the  commodities  of  trade 
and  commerce  have  come  down  in  the  same  ratio.  Yet  the  currency 
has  been  increasing,  strange  as  it  may  seem.  And  the  gentleman  need 
not  go  back  to  the  hornbooks  to  find  out  these  facts.  They  stare  us  in 
the  face  every  day.  It  cannot  be  denied  that,  while  the  currency  has 
been  increasing,  gold  has  been  going  down. 

A  paragraph  from  the  Merchants'  Magazine  for  January  last 
will  perfectly  answer  the  gentleman's  question.  It  is  to  this 
effect:  the  President's  Message  raised  government  securities 
at  home  and  abroad,  and  depressed  gold.  The  report  of  the 
Secretary  of  the  Treasury  accomplished  still  more.  The  very 
announcement  of  the  policy  of  resumption  has  checked  gold 
and  stock  gambling  and  brought  down  prices.  That  historical 
fact  is  a  complete  answer  to  the  gentleman's  question.  Besides, 
sir,  it  must  be  remembered  that  six  hundred  millions  of  Rebel 
currency  collapsed  and  disappeared  on  the  day  the  so-called 
Southern  Confederacy  collapsed,  and  thus  left  a  vacuum  into 
which  our  currency  has  since  been  flowing. 

I  call  attention,  because  the  gentleman  from  Pennsylvania^ 
has  referred  to  it,  to  a  remarkable  example  in  British  finan- 
cial history.  I  have  never  seen  a  more  perfect  illustration  of 
the  truth  that  history  repeats  itself,  than  this  debate  as  com- 
pared with  the  debate  in  the  British  Parliament  during  their 
great  struggle  for  a  return  to  specie  payments  after  the  war 
against  Napoleon.  From  1797  to  1819  the  British  people  had 
only  a  paper  circulation,  and,  as  is  always  the  case,  the  poorer 
currency  drove  out  the  better.  As  respectable  people  leave 
that  portion  of  a  city  in  which  disreputable  people  settle,  so 
gold  retires  before  an  irredeemable  paper  currency.  If  our 
customs  and  the  interest  on  our  public  debt  had  not  been  made 
payable  in  coin,  gold  would  have  disappeared  from  the  country. 
In  England,  when  they  had  no  gold  in  circulation,  when  prices 
had  risen,  when  rents  had  risen,  after  stocks  had  fallen,  English- 
men did  what  we  are  now  attempting  to  do. 

In  1 810  a  committee  of  the  ablest  financiers  and  statesmen 
was  ordered  to  report  the  cause  of  high  prices  and  the  premium 
upon  gold,  and  after  a  laborious  investigation,  during  which  the 
most  distinguished  men  were  called  in  as  witnesses,  that  most 

^  Mr.  Stevens. 


THE  PUBLIC  DEBT  AND  SPECIE  PAYMENTS,  193 

able  paper,  the  Bullion  Report,  was  submitted  to  Parliament. 
In  that  report  the  principle  was  enunciated  that  the  only  true 
test  of  the  redundancy  of  currency  is  its  comparison  in  value 
with  gold;  that  whenever  a  paper  dollar  is  not  exchangeable 
for  a  gold  dollar,  it  is  proof  that  there  are  too  many  paper  dol- 
lars; and  there  can  be  no  surer  test.  In  the  report  of  that 
committee  it  was  laid  down  as  a  fundamental  proposition,  that 
nothing  but  the  supreme  test  of  gold  applied  to  paper  will 
certainly  determine  the  question  of  redundancy.  That  report 
was  debated  for  many  weeks,  and  every  leading  banker,  broker, 
importer,  and  jobber  of  England  opposed  the  Bullion  Com- 
mittee and  the  proposed  return  to  cash  payments.  The  meas- 
ure was  defeated.  Gold  and  prices  immediately  rose.  From 
181 1  to  1819  there  was  a  steady  rise  in  prices  and  stocks;  and 
in  the  year  18 19  another  committee  of  the  House  of  Commons 
was  appointed  to  examine  and  report  on  the  financial  situation 
of  the  kingdom.  Three  members  of  the  Bullion  Committee  of 
1810  were  also  on  the  committee  of  18 19.  After  a  most  search- 
ing investigation,  they  reported  in  favor  of  resumption,  and 
indorsed  the  doctrines  of  the  Bullion  Report. 

Then  it  was  that  Sir  Robert  Peel  distinguished  himself  as 
the  great  statesman  and  financier  of  England  by  declaring  in 
the  House  of  Commons  his  conversion  to  the  doctrines  of  the 
Bullion  Report,  which  he  had  so  strenuously  opposed  eight 
years  before.  I  have  before  me  the  records  of  the  great  debate 
in  which  that  illustrious  man  lamented  that  the  distinguished 
author  of  the  Bullion  Report  of  181 1  ^  was  not  then  alive  to 
aid  him  in  that  struggle,  and  witness  the  triumph  of  those  prin- 
ciples so  clearly  set  forth  in  181 1.  Eight  years  of  terrible  ex- 
perience had  demonstrated  the  truth  of  the  Bullion  Report. 
**  Sir,"  said  Peel,  **  \vc  shall  never  have  financial  security  in  this 
country  until  we  adopt  the  principles  of  that  report "  ;  and  after 
a  Parliamentary  struggle,  the  report  of  which  fills  nearly  five 
hundred  pages  of  Mansard's  Debates,  the  report  was  adopted, 
and  its  principles  have  ever  since  been  the  acknowledged  creed 
of  Great  Britain  and  of  all  other  countries  whose  people  have 
carefully  studied  the  subject.  I  refer  to  this,  sir,  as  a  matter  of 
history,  and  I  further  assert  that  there  is  no  respectable  author- 
ity on  the  subject  of  finance,  on  the  other  side  of  the  water  or 
here,  that  denies  the  doctrine  that  the  only  true  test  of  redun- 

1  Francis  Horner. 
VOL.  I.  13 


1 94  THE  PUBLIC  DEBT  AND  SPECIE  PAYMENTS. 

dancy  of  currency  is  its  convertibility  into  gold.  You  may 
bring  your  figures  to  prove  that  we  have  no  more  currency 
than  our  trade  requires;  but  I  tell  you  that  so  long  as  your 
paper  dollar  cannot  be  converted  into  gold,  there  is  too  much 
currency,  and  the  moment  it  can  be  converted  into  gold  for  its 
face,  it  has  reached  a  stable  and  safe  basis. 

Now,  if  any  gentleman  here  has  the  temerity  to  deny  this 
doctrine,  I  shall  be  pleased  to  hear  his  reasons  for  it.  To  make 
his  denial  good,  he  must  prove  that  the  immutable  laws  of  value 
have  been  overthrown.  He  cannot  plead  that  the  necessities  of 
trade  alone  control  the  value  of  currency.  Double  the  amount 
of  currency,  and  the  money  market  will  be  apparently  more 
stringent ;  triple  the  amount,  and  money  will  be  more  stringent 
still.  Why  .do  we  need  four  times  as  much  money  now  to 
move  the  products  of  the  country  as  was  needed  five  years 
ago?  Simply  because  the  inflation  of  the  currency  has  quad- 
rupled prices  and  deranged  values. 

But  the  worst  feature  in  the  case  is  the  stimulus  which  this 
inflation  gives  to  dishonesty  everywhere,  and  the  consequent 
discouragement  of  productive  industry.  I  will  not  now  ques- 
tion the  policy  of  the  act  of  1862,  by  which  paper  money  was 
made  a  legal  tender.  It  was  perhaps  a  necessity  of  the  war 
that  could  not  have  been  avoided.  But  no  one  will  deny  that  it 
unsettled  the  basis  of  all  values  in  this  country.  It  was  a  decla- 
ration by  law  that  a  promise  to  pay  a  dollar  might  be  dis- 
charged by  paying  a  sum  less  than  a  dollar.  There  was  a 
time  within  the  last  two  years  when  an  obligation  to  pay  one 
hundred  dollars  could  be  legally  cancelled  by  the  payment  of 
thirty-eight  dollars.  The  manifold  evils  resulting  from  such  a 
state  of  things  cannot  be  computed.  To  fulfil  in  January  the 
contract  of  July  may  ruin  the  creditor,  because  the  meaning  of 
the  most  important  word  in  the  contract  has  been  changed  by 
the  changing  market.  The  dollar  of  July  may  have  represented 
forty  cents,  while  the  dollar  of  January  may  represent  double 
that  sum. 

Will  prudent  men  embark  in  solid  business,  and  risk  all  they 
possess  to  such  uncertain  chances?  There  is  left  open  the 
alluring  temptation  to  speculate  on  the  rise  and  fall  of  gold, 
stocks,  and  commodities,  a  pursuit  in  which  all  that  is  gained  by 
one  is  lost  by  another,  and  no  addition  is  made  to  the  public 
wealth.     And  this  is  the  history  of  thousands  of  our  business 


THE  PUBLIC  DEBT  AND  SPECIE  PAYMENTS.   195 

men.  They  have  trusted  their  capital  to  the  desperate  chances 
of  Wall  Street.  They  have  embarked  on  the  sea  of  paper 
money,  and  they  ask  us  to  keep  the  flood  rising  that  they  may 
float  Every  day  adds  stimulus  to  this  insane  gambling,  and 
depresses  legitimate  business  and  honest  labor.  The  tide  must 
be  checked,  and  the  fury  of  the  flood  restrained.  Wc  must 
bring  values  back  to  the  solid  standard  of  gold.  Let  that  be 
done,  and  the  fabric  of  business  is  founded,  not  on  the  sand,  but 
on  the  firm  rock  of  public  faith.  The  fury  of  the  storm  tore  us 
from  our  moorings,  and  left  us  to  the  mercy  of  the  waves.  Let 
us  pilot  the  good  ship  again  into  port,  so  that  we  may  once 
more  feel  the  solid  earth  beneath  our  feet. 

How  perfectly  prices  have  kept  pace  with  the  currency  let 
the  history  of  the  last  five  years  show.  Name  any  one  year  in 
which  the  currency  has  been  more  inflated  than  in  the  preced- 
ing, with  no  prospect  of  contraction,  and  you  will  find  prices 
proportionately  advanced.  I  hold  in  my  hand  the  price  list  of 
the  last  four  years,  as  published  in  the  Merchants*  Magazine. 
Take,  for  example,  the  average  price  of  flour.  In  January, 
1861,  it  was  $5.35  per  barrel;  in  1862,  it  was  $5.50;  in  1863, 
$6.05;   in   1864,  it  was  $7;    in  1865,  $10.     The  prices  kept  in  \ 

exact  proportion  to  the  volume  of  the  currency.  Now,  in  Jan- 
uary, 1866,  after  the  President,  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury, 
and  Congress  had  made  a  decided  movement  toward  specie 
payments,  and  indicated  their  purpose  to  restore  the  old  stan- 
dard of  value,  the  price  dropped  to  $8.75  per  barrel,  as  the 
average  for  the  month.  Take  any  one  of  the  sixty-three 
articles  on  this  market  list,  and  it  will  exhibit  the  same  truth, 
that  an  expanded  currency  produces  high  prices.  British  and 
French  history,  as  well  as  our  own,  give  the  same  testimony  on 
this  subject.  I  do  not,  of  course,  suppose  that  resumption  will 
bring  us  down  to  old  prices.  Heavy  taxes  and  the  increased 
product  of  gold  will  hold  prices  higher  than  they  were  before 
the  war. 

I  cannot  leave  this  point  without  citing  the  great  authority  of 
Daniel  Webster  on  the  subject  of  irredeemable  paper  money. 
I  quote  from  his  speech  of  May  25,  1832,  on  the  Bank  of  the 
United  States :  — : 

"A  sound  currency  is  an  essential  and  indispensable  security  for  the 
fruits  of  industry  and  honest  enteq:)rise.  Every  man  of  property  or  in- 
dustry, every  man  who  desires  to  preserve  what  he  honestly  possesses,  or 


/ 


196  THE  PUBLIC  DEBT  AND  SPECIE  PAYMENTS. 

to  obtain  what  he  can  honestly  earn,  has  a  direct  interest  in  maintaining 
a  safe  circulating  medium ;  such  a  medium  as  shall  be  a  real  and  sub- 
stantial representative  of  property,  not  liable  to  vibrate  with  opinions, 
not  subject  to  be  blown  up  or  blown  down  by  the  breath  of  speculation, 
but  made  stable  and  secure  by  its  immediate  relation  to  that  which  the 
whole  world  regards  as  of  a  permanent  value.  A  disordered  currency  is 
one  of  the  greatest  of  political  evils.  It  undermines  the  virtues  necessary 
for  the  support  of  the  social  system,  and  encourages  propensities  destruc- 
tive of  its  happiness.  It  wars  against  industry,  frugality,  and  economy ; 
and  it  fosters  the  evil  spirits  of  extravagance  and  speculation.  Of  all  the 
contrivances  for  cheating  the  laboring  classes  of  mankind,  none  has  been 
more  effectual  than  that  which  deludes  them  with  paper  money.  This 
is  the  most  effectual  of  inventions  to  fertilize  the  rich  man's  field  by  the 
sweat  of  the  poor  man's  brow.  Ordinary  t}Tanny,  oppression,  excessive 
taxation,  these  bear  lightly  on  the  happiness  of  the  mass  of  the  commu- 
nity, compared  with  a  fraudulent  currency  and  the  robberies  committed 
by  depreciated  paper.  Our  own  history  has  recorded  for  our  instruction 
enough,  and  more  than  enough,  of  the  demoralizing  tendency,  the  in- 
justice, and  the  intolerable  oppression  on  the  virtuous  and  well  disposed, 
of  a  degraded  paper  currency  authorized  by  law,  or  in  any  way  counte- 
nanced by  government."  ^ 

Resumption  is  not  so  difficult  a  work  as  many  suppose.  It 
did  not  take  so  long  in  England  as  the  gentleman  from  Pennsyl- 
vania^ stated  in  his  speech  this  afternoon.  In  July,  1819,  Par- 
liament decreed  that  after  February  i,  1820,  the  Bank  should 
begin  to  redeem  in  small  quantities,  and  should  increase  the 
amount  at  stated  periods  until  May,  1823,  when  full  specie  pay- 
ment should  be  made.  The  Bank  contracted  its  circulation, 
reduced  the  price  of  gold,  and  fully  resumed  payments.  May  i, 
1 82 1,  only  fifteen  months  after  the  law  went  into  operation.  I 
should  be  sorry  to  see  a  sudden  contraction  of  our  currency 
and  a  rapid  decline  in  gold.  It  would  be  too  great  a  shock  to 
business.  But  if  the  Secretary  is  armed  with  the  requisite  power, 
he  can  make  the  movement  so  steadily  and  gradually  as  not  to 
disturb,  to  any  dangerous  degree,  the  course  of  business  and 
trade. 

The  chief  objection  urged  against  the  pending  bill  is  that  it 
confers  too  much  power,  —  more  than  ought  to  be  intrusted  to 
any  man.  Now,  sir,  a  tremendous  power  was  given  to  General 
Grant,  when  the  lives  of  hundreds  of  thousands  of  men  were 
placed  absolutely  at  his  disposal.     Sherman  was  intrusted  with 

1  Works  of  Daniel  Webster,  Vol.  III.  pp.  394,  395.  2  Mr.  Stevens. 


THE  PUBLIC  DEBT  AND  SPECIE  PA  YMENTS,   197 

vast  power  when  he  started  with  his  great  army  on  his  march 
to  the  sea.  But  it  was  necessary  to  trust  some  one  with  that 
power.  Congress  could  not  command  armies  and  plan  cam- 
paigns. So  also,  in  the  present  emergency,  some  one  must  be 
trusted  with  power.  Congress  cannot  negotiate  a  loan,  cannot 
regulate  the  details  of  the  currency,  or  fund  the  debt.  It  must 
delegate  the  power.  I  will  not  eulogize  the  present  Secretary 
of  the  Treasury ;  he  needs  no  eulogy  from  me.  It  is  the  Sec- 
retary of  the  Treasury,  not  Hugh  McCuUoch,  who  needs  this 
power.  I  vote  to  give  it  to  the  incumbent  of  that  high  office, 
whoever  he  may  be,  and  hold  him  responsible  for  the  use  he 
may  make  of  it. 

I  repeat  it,  sir,  if  gentlemen  do  not  approve  this  bill,  they 
should  offer  some  other  plan  that  will  accomplish  the  desired 
result 

[Here  Mr.  Garfield  turned  aside  from  the  direct  line  of  his  argument 
to  discuss  the  question  of  the  States  taxing  the  national  bonds.  As  the 
subject  of  taxing  the  bonds  is  much  more  fully  discussed  in  the  speech 
of  July  15,  1868,  that  branch  of  his  argument  is  here  omitted.] 

The  gentleman  from  Pennsylvania  ^  tells  us  he  is  in  favor  of 
returning  to  specie  payments  when  it  can  be  done  without  dis- 
turbing or  deranging  the  business  of  the  country.  If  he  waits 
for  that,  it  can  never  be  done.  It  cannot  be  done  without  first 
contracting  the  currency  and  producing  a  temporary  stringency 
in  the  money  market.  If  we  have  not  the  nerve  to  do  that,  if 
we  have  not  patriotism  to  suffer  that  temporary  inconvenience, 
we  must  go  on  in  the  swift  road  to  financial  disaster  and  ultimate 
national  bankruptcy. 

The  gentleman  says  we  must  reach  specie  payments  by  pro- 
tection. He  says,  if  we  protect  our  manufactures  we  shall  keep 
gold  from  going  abroad.  This  is  not  his  first  attempt  to  regu- 
late the  value  and  movement  of  gold  by  legislation.  After  a 
few  days'  trial,  his  law  of  1864  for  that  purpose  was  repealed. 
I  do  not  oppose  protection.  I  am  in  favor  of  protecting  the 
sanctity  of  contracts  by  bringing  all  values  back  to  the  basis  of 
a  uniform  standard.  Then  our  iron  mills  will  not  stand  idle, 
as  they  now  do,  because  of  the  risk  occasioned  by  the  violent 
fluctuation  of  prices. 

Mr.  Speaker,  this  is  our  only  remedy.     I  have  faith  in  the 

^  Mr.  Stevens. 


198   THE  PUBLIC  DEBT  AND  SPECIE  PAYMENTS. 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury  that  he  will,  by  and  by,  with  as  little 
disturbance  to  business  as  possible,  bring  us  to  specie  pay- 
ments. We  have  travelled  more  than  one  quarter  of  the  way 
since  Congress  met.  Gold  was  then  148,  now  it  is  130.  Mercury 
in  the  barometer  is  not  more  sensitive  to  atmospheric  influences 
than  is  the  gold  market  to  the  legislation  of  Congress.  Witness 
the  following  paragraph  from  the  financial  column  of  a  recent 
New  York  daily:  "Wall  Street  is  more  animated  to-day  in 
consequence  of  the  report,  which  is  extensively  believed,  that 
all  loan  bills  will  be  made  conducive  to  inflation,  and  that  the 
temper  of  Congress  is  hostile  to  all  measures  looking  toward 
contraction  of  the  greenback  currency.  This  is  interpreted 
to  be  favorable  to  higher  prices,  and  is  already  producing  its 
effects  in  stimulating  speculation."  Defeat  this  bill  and  there 
will  be  a  jubilee  in  Wall  Street.  This  House  must  take  the 
responsibility. 

• 

The  bill  having  been  lost  ofi  the  i6th  of  March  by  a  small  majority, 
Mr.  Garfield  changed  his  vote  so  as  to  enable  him  to  move  to  reconsider, 
which  motion  was  sustained  by  the  House  on  the  19th.  Before  moving 
the  previous  question,  Mr.  Garfield  said  :  — 

Mr.  Speaker,  —  Every  gentleman  in  this  House  must  admit 
that,  during  the  short  time  given  to  the  committee  this  morn- 
ing, a  full  hearing  has  been  given  to  two  of  the  ablest  gentle- 
men who  oppose  this  measure,  and  I  presume  their  views  could 
not  have  been  more  strongly  stated  in  the  same  length  of  time 
than  they  have  just  been  stated  by  the  gentleman  from  Massa- 
chusetts.^ But  I  wish  to  call  his  attention  and  that  of  the  House 
to  the  fact  that,  in  the  discussion  of  the  bill,  he  has  raised  an 
issue  aside  from  the  question.  He  has  undertaken  to  antagonize 
the  policy  of  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  with  the  business 
interests  of  the  country,  and  has  told  us  that  we  are  putting  in 
the  hands  of  the  Secretary  a  power  which  may  be  used  against 
the  industry  and  honest  labor  of  the  country. 

We  propose,  sir,  to  put  power  into  his  hands  to  be  used 
against  those  financial  gamblers  who  would  break  down  the 
public  credit,  and  thus  injure  the  most  important  interests  of 
the  country.  I  would  be  the  last  man  to  cast  a  vote  that  could 
oppress  the  manufacturer,  or  any  other  producer  of  wealth,  and 

1  Mr.  Boutwell. 


THE  PUBLIC  DEBT  AND  SPECIE  PA  YMENTS.  199 

I  believe  that  the  honorable  Secretary  asks  for  power,  not  to 
oppress,  but  to  encourage  industry.  But  I  ask  gentlemen 
whether  they  have  considered  where  he  will  be  left  in  case  we 
do  not  give  him  the  power  he  now  asks.  Why  does  he  ask  it? 
The  President  of  the  United  States  declared  a  financial  policy, 
which  has  been  more  fully  elaborated  by  the  Secretary,  and  we 
are  now  asked  to  give  him  power  to  carry  out  that  policy ;  but 
gentlemen  hesitate,  because  it  may  bring  a  temporary  pressure 
upon  the  business  of  the  country. 

The  gentleman  has  stated  the  amount  of  currency  that  might 
be  withdrawn  under  the  provisions  of  this  bill,  and  says  if  the 
whole  were  withdrawn  it  would  cause  a  disastrous  collapse.  He 
has  forgotten  that  there  is  nearly  $300,000,000  of  gold  and 
silver  in  this  country  which  will  flow  into  the  circulation  as  the 
gfreenback  currency  is  retired.  He  has  also  forgotten  that  we 
are  now  producing  over  $100,000,000  in  gold  and  silver  every 
year  from  our  mines.  He  has  omitted  these  very  considera- 
ble sums,  which  changes  entirely  the  conditions  of  the  problem 
before  us. 

Mr.  Stevens.  From  what  data  does  the  gentleman  undertake  to  say 
that  there  is  ^300,000,000  in  gold  now  in  this  country  ready  for  circula- 
tion? 

I  base  my  estimate  on  the  opinion  of  those  who  have  given 
the  subject  careful  attention,  and  also  upon  the  condition  of  our 
foreign  exchanges.  The  gentleman  is  aware  that  exchange  for 
gold  with  all  nations  is  now  in  our  favor,  and  that  cannot  be 
unless  we  have  a  very  considerable  quantity  of  gold  in  the 
country. 

Mr.  Stevens.     I  have  seen  no  record  of  over  $70,000,000. 

There  are  $57,000,000  in  the  Treasury  now,  besides  what  is 
deposited  in  banks  and  in  private  coffers.  Beside  this,  it  must  be 
remembered  that  gold  is  now  the  currency  of  the  Pacific  States. 
But  the  fact  that  foreign  exchange  is  in  our  favor  is  an  indubi- 
table proof  that  we  have  a  large  supply  of  specie. 

Mr.  Kelley.  Will  the  gentleman  permit  a  single  brief  question? 
Is  not  the  inflowing  volume  of  gold  a  return  for  bonds,  rather  than  for 
produce  of  any  kind,  raw  or  manufactured  ? 

That  does  not  alter  the  fact.  By  whatever  means  it  comes, 
we  have  the  gold,  and  the  supply  is  increasing,  and  will  increase' 
so  long  as  we  pursue  the  policy  of  resumption. 


200  THE  PUBLIC  DEBT  AND  SPECIE  PA  YMENTS. 

And  now,  once  for  all,  I  desire  to  say,  before  leaving  this 
subject,  that  neither  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  nor  the  Com- 
mittee of  Ways  and  Means  intends  or  desires  that  there  shall  be 
a  rapid  contraction  of  the  currency;  there  is  no  purpose  of 
that  kind.  Already,  in  anticipation  of  the  measure  now  under 
discussion,  gold  is  falling  even  more  rapidly  than  is  desirable. 
I  am  sorry  to  see  it  move  downward  so  fast  as  it  does.  And 
the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  if  he  could,  would  make  its  de- 
cline more  gradual. 

Mr.  Speaker,  the  question  is,  will  we  give  the  Secretary  of 
the  Treasury  the  power  to  initiate  the  policy  of  contraction  of 
the  currency,  as  the  House  indicated  so  decisively  on  the  i8th 
of  December  last?^  What  other  policy  has  been  suggested? 
A  policy  has  been  suggested  by  the  gentleman  from  Pennsyl- 
vania ^  in  a  bill  he  introduced  this  morning.  That  bill  author- 
izes the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  to  take  up  short  bonds  as 
they  mature,  and  issue  greenbacks  in  payment.  If  it  should  be 
adopted,  $1,000,000,000  of  greenbacks  would  be  issued  in  the 
next  eighteen  months.  I  have  upon  my  desk  a  pamphlet 
written  by  a  citizen  of  Pennsylvania  signing  himself  "  Patriot,'* 
who  recommends  the  immediate  issue  of  $1,000,000,000  of 
greenbacks,  and  believes  it  would  put  the  country  in  a  healthy 
condition  for  business !  This  enthusiastic  pamphleteer  rises 
to  the  sublime,  if  not  to  the  blasphemous,  and  declares,  as  the 
sum  of  his  financial  wisdom,  that  next  to  the  immortal  God 
paper  money  is  the  greatest  and  most  beneficent  power  on  this 
earth.  This  "  Patriot "  will  be  delighted  with  the  biM  of  his 
distinguished  representative. 

Mr.  Speaker,  there  is  no  leading  financier,  no  leading  states- 
man, now  living,  or  who  has  lived  within  the  last  half-cen- 
tury, in  whose  opinion  the  gentleman  can  find  any  support. 
They  all  declare,  as  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  declares,  that 
the  only  honest  basis  of  value  is  a  currency  redeemable  in 
specie  at  the  will  of  the  holder.  I  am  an  advocate  of  paper 
money,  but  that  paper  money  must  represent  what  it  promises 
on  its  face.     I  do  not  wish  to  hold  in  my  hands  the  printed  lies 

1  The  reference  is  to  this  resolution, adopted  at  that  time  :  "Resolved,  That  this 
House  cordially  concurs  in  the  views  of  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  in  relation 
to  the  necessity  of  a  contraction  of  the  currency  with  a  view  to  as  early  a  resump- 
.tion  of  specie  payments  as  the  business  interests  of  the  country  will  permit;  and 
we  hereby  pledge  co-operative  action  to  this  end  as  rapidly  as  practicable." 

-2  Mr.  Kclley. 


THE  PUBLIC  DEBT  AND  SPECIE  PAYMENTS.  20I 

of  the  government;  I  want  its  promise  to  pay,  signed  by  the 
high  officers  of  the  government,  sacredly  kept,  in  the  exact 
meaning  of  the  words  of  the  promise.  Let  us  not  continue  to 
practise  this  conjurer's  art,  by  which  sixty  cents  shall  discharge 
a  debt  of  one  hundred  cents.  I  do  not  want  industry  every- 
-where  to  be  thus  crippled  and  wounded,  and  its  wounds  plas- 
tered over  with  legally  authorized  lies. 

A  bill  was  introduced  into  the  House  expressing  the  wishes 
of  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury.  The  Committee  of  Ways 
and  Means  reduced  its  proportions,  and  struck  out  several  pro- 
visions that  they  believed  could  safely  be  spared.  They  struck 
out  tho  foreign  loan  clause,  and  restricted  the  power  conferred 
by  it  till  the  Secretary  declares  that  with  any  less  power  he  shall 
be  unable  to  fund  our  indebtedness  and  manage  our  finances. 

I  propose,  sir,  to  let  the  House  take  the  responsibility  of 
adopting  or  rejecting  this  measure.  On  the  one  side,  it  is  pro- 
posed to  return  to  solid  and  honest  values;  on  the  other,  to 
float  on  the  boundless  and  shoreless  sea  of  paper  money,  with 
all  its  dishonesty  and  broken  pledges.  We  leave  it  to  the 
House  to  decide  which  alternative  it  will  choose.  Choose  the 
one,  and  you  float  away  into  an  unknown  sea  of  paper  money, 
that  shall  know  no  decrease  until  you  take  just  such  a  measure  as 
is  now  proposed  to  bring  us  back  again  to  solid  values.  Delay 
this  measure,  and  it  will  cost  the  country  dear.  Adopt  it  now, 
and  with  a  little  depression  in  business  and  a  little  stringency 
in  the  money  market  the  worst  will  be  over,  and  we  shall  have 
reached  the  solid  earth.  Sooner  or  later  such  a  measure  must 
be  adopted.  Go  on  as  you  are  now  going  on,  and  a  financial 
crisis  worse  than  that  of  1837  ^^ill  bring  us  to  the  bottom. 
For  one  I  am  unwilling  that  my  name  shall  be  linked  to  the 
fate  of  a  paper  currency.  I  believe  that  any  party  which  com- 
mits itself  to  paper  money  will  go  down  amid  the  general  dis- 
aster, covered  with  the  curses  of  a  ruined  people. 

Mr.  Speaker,  I  remember  that  on  the  monument  of  Queen 
Elizabeth,  where  her  glories  were  recited  and  her  honors 
summed  up,  among  the  last  and  the  highest,  recorded  as  the 
climax  of  all  her  achievements,  was  this,  —  that  she  had  restored 
the  money  of  her  kingdom  to  its  just  value.  And  when  this 
House  shall  have  done  its  work,  when  it  shall  have  brought  back 
values  to  their  proper  standard,  it  also  will  deserve  a  monu- 
ment. 


THE   MEMORY  OF   ABRAHAM   LINCOLN. 

REMARKS  MADE  IN  THE  HOUSE  OF  REPRESENTATIVES, 

April  14,  1866. 


On  motion  of  Mr.  Garfield,  the  reading  of  the  Journal  of  yesterday  was 
dispensed  with.     He  then  said  :  — 

MR.  SPEAKER,  —  I  desire  to  move  that  this  House  do 
now  adjourn.  And  before  the  vote  upon  that  motion  is 
taken  I  desire  to  say  a  few  words. 

This  day,  Mr.  Speaker,  will  be  sadly  memorable  so  long  as 
this  nation  shall  endure,  which  God  grant  may  be  **  till  the  last 
syllable  of  recorded  time,"  when  the  volume  of  human  history 
shall  be  sealed  up  and  delivered  to  the  Omnipotent  Judge.  In 
all  future  time,  on  the  recurrence  of  this  day,  I  doubt  not  that 
the  citizens  of  this  republic  will  meet  in  solemn  assembly  to 
reflect  on  the  life  and  character  of  Abraham  Lincoln,  and  the 
awful,  tragic  event  of  April  14,  1865,  —  an  event  unparalleled 
in  the  history  of  nations,  certainly  unparalleled  in  our  o'.vn.  It 
is  eminently  proper  that  this  House  should  this  day  place  upon 
its  records  a  memorial  of  that  event. 

The  last  five  years  hav6  been  marked  by  wonderful  develop- 
ments of  individual  character.  Thousands  of  our  people,  before 
unknown  to  fame,  have  taken  their  places  in  history,  crowned 
with  immortal  honors.  In  thousands  of  humble  homes  arc 
dwelling  heroes  and  patriots  whose  names  shall  never  die.  But 
greatest  among  all  these  great  developments  were  the  character 
and  fame  of  Abraham  Lincoln,  whose  loss  the  nation  still  de- 
plores. His  character  is  aptly  described  in  the  words  of  Eng- 
land's great  Laureate,  —  written  thirty  years  ago,  —  in  which 
he  traces  the  upward  steps  of 


ABRAHAM  LINCOLN.  203 

**  Some  divinely  gifted  man, 
Whose  life  in  low  estate  began 
And  on  a  simple  village  green ; 

**  Who  breaks  his  birth's  invidious  bar, 
And  grasps  the  skirts  of  happy  chance, 
And  breasts  the  blows  of  circumstance, 
And  grapples  with  his  evil  star ; 

**  Who  makes  by  force  his  merit  known 
And  lives  to  clutch  the  golden  keys, 
To  mould  a  mighty  State's  decrees, 
And  shape  the  whisper  of  the  throne  ; 

**  And,  moving  up  from  high  to  higher, 
Becomes  on  Fortune's  crowning  slope 
The  pillar  of  a  people's  hope, 
The  centre  of  a  world's  desire.** 

Such  a  life  and  character  will  be  treasured  forever  as  the 
sacred  possession  of  the  American  people  and  of  mankind. 

In  the  great  drama  of  the  rebellion  there  were  two  acts.     The 
first  was  the  war,  with  its  battles  and  sieges,  its  victories  and  de- 
feats, its  sufferings  and  tears.    That  act  w^as  closing  one  year  ago 
to-night,  and,  just  as  the  curtain  was  lifting  on  the  second  and 
final  act,  the  restoration  of  peace  and  liberty, — just  as  the  cur- 
tain was  rising  upon  new  characters  and  new  events,  —  the  evil 
spirit  of  the  rebellion,  in  the  fury  of  despair,  nerved  and  directed 
the  hand  of  an  assassin  to  strike  down  the  chief  character  in 
both.     It  was  no  one  man  who  killed  Abraham  Lincoln  ;   it  was 
the  embodied  spirit  of  Treason  and  Slavery,  inspired  with  fearful 
and  despairing  hate,  that  struck  him  down,  in  the  moment  of  the 
nation's  suprcmcst  joy. 

Sir,  there  are  times  in  the  history  of  men  and  nations,  when 
they  stand  so  near  the  veil  that  separates  mortals  from  the  im- 
mortals, time  from  eternity,  and  men  from  their  God,  that  they 
can  almost  hear  the  beatings  and  feel  the  pulsations  of  the  heart 
of  the  Infinite.  Through  such  a  time  has  this  nation  passed. 
When  two  hundred  and  fifty  thousand  brave  spirits  passed  from 
the  field  of  honor,  through  that  thin  veil,  to  the  presence  of 
God,  and  when  at  last  its  parting  folds  admitted  the  martyr 
President  to  the  company  of  these  dead  heroes  of  the  republic, 
the  nation  stood  so  near  the  veil  that  the  whispers  of  God  were 
heard  by  the  children  of  men.  Awestricken  by  His  voice,  the 
American  people  knelt  in  tearful  reverence  and  made  a  solemn 


204  ABRAHAM  LINCOLN. 

covenant  with  Him  and  with  each  other,  that  this  nation  should 
be  saved  from  its  enemies,  that  all  its  glories  should  be  restored, 
and,  on  the  ruins  of  slavery  and  treason,  the  temples  of  freedom 
and  justice  should  be  built,  and  should  survive  forever. 

It  remains  for  us,  consecrated  by  that  great  event,  and  under 
a  covenant  with  God,  to  keep  that  faith,  to  go  forward  in  the 
great  work  until  it  shall  be  completed.  Following  the  lead  of 
that  great  man,  and  obeying  the  high  behests  of  God,  let  us 
remember  that 

**  He  has  sounded  forth  the  trumpet  that  shall  never  call  retreat ; 
He  is  sifting  out  the  hearts  of  men  before  His  judgment-seat; 
O,  be  swift,  my  soul,  to  answer  Him !  be  jubilant,  my  feet  1 
Our  God  is  marching  on." 

I  move,  sir,  that  this  House  do  now  adjourn. 


THE   TARIFF   BILL   OF    1866. 

SPEECH   DELIVERED  IN  THE  HOUSE  OF   REPRESENTATIVES, 

July  io,  1866. 


The  Morrill  Tariff,  enacted  at  the  close  of  the  Congressional  session 
of  1860-61,  greatly  increased  the  duties  on  imported  goods.  This  legis- 
lation was  had  partly  to  fill  the  depleted  national  treasury,  but  more 
especially  to  give  protection  to  American  industry.  It  marked  a  definite 
triumph  of  the  protective  principle.  Subsidiary  to  this  act,  other  legis- 
lation of  the  same  general  character  was  had  from  time  to  time,  reaching 
to  the  close  of  the  war.  Now,  it  was  said,  there  was  a  call  for  still  higher 
protection.  Accordingly,  June  25,  1866,  Mr.  J.  S.  Morrill,  the  author  of 
the  former  measure,  now  the  chainiian  of  the  Committee  of  Ways  and 
Means,  reported  fi'om  that  committee  a  bill  to  provide  increased  revenue 
fix)m  imports,  and  for  other  purposes.  The  "  other  purposes  "  were 
greater  protection.  In  vindicating  the  measure,  Mr.  Morrill  said,  June  28, 
that  the  war  had  greatly  deranged  the  industrial  and  fiscal  economy  of 
the  country.  Immense  masses  of  wealth  had  been  destroyed,  the  pro- 
ducing power  of  the  country  much  reduced,  new  industrial  adjustments 
had  been  made,  a  vast  debt  had  been  created,  and  heavy  burdens  of 
taxation  incurred.  Nothing  but  heavier  duties  on  imports  would  furnish 
the  needed  revenue,  and  enable  American  labor  to  comj)ete  with  foreign 
labor.  Mr.  Garfield,  who  was  a  member  of  the  Committee  of  Ways  and 
Means,  bore  a  prominent  part  in  the  discussion  of  the  bill.  This,  his 
principal  speech,  was  delivered  on  July  10,  just  before  the  vote  was  taken. 
In  it  he  discusses  for  the  most  part  general  doctrines ;  his  views  on 
specific  points  must  be  sought  in  his  briefer  remarks  and  in  his  votes. 
In  the  House  the  bill  was  carried  ;  in  the  Senate  it  was  referred  to  the 
Finance  Committee,  and  postponed  to  the  next  session.  Then  it  came 
back  to  the  House,  greatly  changed,  where  it  finally  failed  to  pass. 


MR.  SPEAKER,  —  At  this  late  hour  of  the  session,  and  after 
the   protracted  discussion  in  which  so  many  gentlemen 
have  engaged,  I  would  not  further  trespass  upon  the  patience 


206  THE   TARIFF  BILL   OF  1866. 

of  the  House  but  for  the  fact  that  this  bill  has  been  so  gravely 
misrepresented  here,  and  so  unjustly  assailed  from  without. 
There  has  been  raised  against  it  no  small  clamor  for  iniquities 
which  it  does  not  contain,  and  for  omissions  which  have  not 
been  made. 

This  is  not  the  time  to  enter  into  any  elaborate  discussion  of 
those  general  principles  which  underlie  the  most  complicated 
of  financial  subjects,  the  trade  between  the  United  States  and 
other  nations.  The  abstract  theories  of  free  trade  and  protec- 
tion, as  laid  down  in  the  books,  can  be  of  little  practical  value 
in  the  consideration  of  this  bill.  The  disciples  of  either  school 
would  be  puzzled  to  apply  their  doctrines  to  the  present  situa- 
tion of  our  trade  and  commerce,  as  has  been  strikingly  illus- 
trated during  the  progress  of  this  debate.  There  is  scarcely 
a  free-trader  on  this  floor  who  has  not,  since  this  discussion 
began,  in  order  to  secure  a  higher  duty  on  some  product  in 
which  his  constituents  were  interested,  made  use  of  arguments 
which  met  the  hearty  approval  of  the  most  extreme  protection- 
ists; and,  on  the  other  hand,  when  these  same  protectionists 
have  been  desirous  of  bringing  into  the  country  some  article 
important  to  their  people,  we  have  heard  them  again  and  again 
defend  their  propositions  by  declarations  which  would  bring 
down  thunders  of  applause  from  an  audience  of  free- trade 
leaguers. 

There  are  two  extremes  of  opinion  in  this  House  and  in  the 
country  to  which  I  cannot  assent.  During  the  past  year  I  have 
been  frequently  solicited  to  subscribe  publicly  to  the  dogmas  of 
various  organizations  based  on  opposite  and  extreme  doctrines 
in  relation  to  our  financial  policy ;  but  I  have  steadily  declined 
to  do  so,  partly  for  the  reason  that  I  could  not  assent  to  all  their 
articles  of  faith,  and  partly  because  I  preferred  to  approach  the 
questions  on  which  we  were  to  legislate  untrammelled  by  any 
abstract  theory,  which,  although  apparently  sound,  might  be 
impracticable  when  applied  to  the  facts  of  our  situation.  I 
would  not  be  misunderstood ;  nor  for  any  political  advantage 
to  myself  personally  would  I  allow  my  constituents  to  suppose 
that  I  indorsed  any  doctrines  which,  though  they  should  be 
pleasing  to  many  of  them,  do  not  meet  my  own  convictions  of 
truth  and  duty. 

If  to  be  a  protectionist  is  to  adopt  the  practice  which  char- 
acterized the  legislation  of  Great  Britain  and  the  leadings  nations 


THE   TARIFF  BILL   OF  1866.  207 

of  Europe  for  more  than  two  hundred  years,  and  which  is  now 
commended  to  us  by  some  of  our  political  philosophers  and 
statesmen,  then  I  am  no  protectionist,  and  shall  never  be  one. 
If  to  be  a  protectionist  is  to  base  our  legislation  upon  the  policy 
which  led  the  Parliament  of  Great  Britain,  from  the  days  of 
Elizabeth  to  the  days  of  Charles  II.,  to  forbid  the  exportation 
of  sheep  and  wool  from  the  kingdom,  under  penalty  of  confisca- 
tion and  imprisonment  for  the  first  offence,  and  torture  and 
death  for  the  second;  which  led  the  same  Parliament  in  1678  to 
pass  a  law  entitled  "  An  Act  for  the  encouragement  of  woollen 
manufactures,"  that  ordered  every  corpse  to  be  buried  in  a 
woollen  shroud ;  which  led  the  Lord  Chancellor  to  declare  the 
necessity  of  going  to  war  with  Holland  because  the  commerce 
of  the  Dutch  was  surpassing  that  of  Great  Britain ;  which  led 
the  diplomatists  of  England  to  insist  on  an  article  in  the  treaty 
of  Utrecht  of  171 3,  in  accordance  with  which  the  finest  harbor 
in  Northern  Europe  was  filled  up  and  hopelessly  ruined,  lest 
by  its  aid  the  trade  of  France  should  eclipse  that  of  England ; 
which  tortured  industry  in  every  imaginable  way,  and  ignored  all 
the  great  laws  of  value,  of  exchange,  and  of  industrial  growth ; 
which  cost  England  her  North  American  colonics,  and  plunged 
Europe  into  more  wars  during  the  seventeenth  and  eighteenth 
centuries  than  all  other  causes  combined ;  —  if  to  be  a  protec- 
tionist means  this,  or  anything  fairly  akin  to  this,  then,  I  repeat, 
I  am  no  protectionist.  That  policy,  softened  down  in  its  out- 
ward manifestations,  but  essentially  the  same  in  spirit,  is  urged 
upon  us  now  by  those  who  would  have  us  place  so  high  a  duty 
upon  foreign  merchandise  as  to  prohibit  the  importation  of  any 
article  which  this  country  produces  or  can  produce.  By  so 
doing,  besides  placing  ourselves  in  an  attitude  of  perpetual  hos- 
tility to  other  nations,  and  greatly  reducing  our  carrying  trade, 
we  should  make  monopolists  of  all  the  leading  manufacturers  of 
this  country,  who  could  fix  the  price  of  all  their  products  at 
their  own  discretion. 

If,  on  the  other  hand,  we  should  adopt  the  theories  of  the 
radical  free-traders,  and  declare  that  our  tariff  shall  be  all  for 
revenue  and  nothing  for  protection,  —  and  particularly,  were  we 
to  put  that  doctrine  in  practice  at  such  a  time  as  in  1836,  when 
we  had  no  debt  and  a  large  surplus  in  the  treasury  to  be  given 
away,  —  no  one  can  fail  to  see  that  we  should  break  down  the 
dikes  which  our  predecessors  had  erected  for  the  defence  of 


2o8  THE   TARIFF  BILL   OF  1866. 

American  industry,  —  should  destroy  or  seriously  cripple  our 
manufactures,  which  produce  nearly  one  half  the  annual  income 
of  our  people  (for  the  manufactured  products  of  this  country  in 
i860  were  valued  at  $1,900,000,000),  —  should  revolutionize  our 
industrial  system,  and  place  ourselves  at  the  mercy  of  foreign 
manufacturers.  If  to  be  a  free-trader  means  all  this,  and  pledges 
us  to  let  the  competition  of  the  world  come  in  upon  our  people, 
and  thus  to  disjoint  and  derange  the  industrial  system  of  the 
United  States,  then  I  am  no  free-trader,  and  can  never  be. 

One  of  the  worst  features  in  our  industrial  system  is  the 
irregularity  and  uncertainty  of  the  legislation  in  reference  to  the 
tariff.  It  subjects  the  business  of  manufacturing  to  the  uncer- 
tainty of  a  lottery.  If  the  prohibitionists  succeed  one  year,  the 
profits  of  manufacturers  are  enormous;  if,  as  is  quite  probable, 
the  reaction  of  the  next  year  puts  free-traders  in  power,  the 
losses  are  equally  great.  Let  either  of  these  parties  frame  the 
tariff,  and  the  result  will  be  calamitous  in  the  highest  degree. 

What,  then,  is  the  point  of  stable  equilibrium,  where  we  can 
balance  these  great  industries  with  the  most  reasonable  hope  of 
permanence  ?  We  have  seen  that  one  extreme  school  of  econo- 
mists would  place  the  price  of  all  manufactured  articles  in  the 
hands  of  foreign  producers,  by  rendering  it  impossible  for  our 
manufacturers  to  compete  with  them ;  while  the  other  extreme 
school,  by  making  it  impossible  for  the  foreigner  to  sell  his 
competing  wares  in  our  market,  would  leave  no  check  upon  the 
prices  which  our  manufacturers  might  fix  upon  their  products. 
I  hold,  therefore,  that  a  properly  adjusted  competition  between 
home  and  foreign  products  is  the  best  gauge  by  which  to  regu- 
late international  trade.  Duties  should  be  so  high  that  our 
manufacturers  can  fairly  compete  with  the  foreign  product,  but 
not  so  high  as  to  enable  them  to  drive  out  the  foreign  article, 
enjoy  a  monopoly  of  the  trade,  and  regulate  the  price  as  they 
please.  To  this  extent  I  am  a  protectionist.  If  our  govern- 
ment pursues  this  line  of  policy  steadily,  we  shall  year  by  year 
approach  more  nearly  to  the  basis  of  free  trade,  because  we 
shall  be  more  nearly  able  to  compete  with  other  nations  on 
equal  terms.  I  am  for  a  protection  which  leads  to  ultimate  free 
trade.  I  am  for  that  free  trade  which  can  be  achieved  only 
through  protection. 

I  desire  to  call  attention  briefly  to  some  of  the  fallacies  and 
misrepresentations  by  which  this  bill  has  been  assailed.     In  the 


THE   TARIFF  BILL   OF  1866.  209 

first  place,  it  has  been  stated  again  and  again  that  this  is  a  New 
England  measure,  and  repeated  attempts  have  been  made  to 
arouse  sectional  jealousy  based  on  that  allegation.  I  affirm 
that  this  is  not  a  New  England  measure,  but  that,  more  than 
any  tariff  ever  framed  by  Congress,  it  protects  and  aids  the  ag- 
ricultural interests  of  the  country.  If  there  has  ever  been  an 
agricultural  tariff,  this  is  one. 

Look  at  its  provisions  on  the  subject  of  wools.  It  is  proposed 
to  increase  the  duty  on  foreign  competing  wools  from  six  cents 
per  pound  to  ten  cents  per  pound,  and  ten  per  cent  ad  valorem^ 
making  the  total  tariff  about  eleven  and  a  half  cents  per  pound. 
It  takes  two  pounds  of  the  mestiza  wool  of  South  America  to 
equal  one  pound  of  our  American  wool.  It  is,  therefore,  a  pro- 
tection of  twenty-three  cents  per  pound  on  American  wools  of 
the  finer  qualities,  which  comprise  the  great  bulk  of  our  wool. 
Now,  there  is  grown  in  the  United  States  one  hundred  million 
pounds  of  wool  per  annum ;  and  yet  the  gentleman  from  Iowa  ^ 
tells  us  that,  in  consequence  of  the  peculiarity  of  the  climate 
and  soil  of  South  America,  we  can  never  compete  with  that 
country  in  the  production  of  wool.  In  the  same  short  speech 
the  gentleman  confuted  himself  by  declaring  that  wool-growing 
was  so  profitable  in  Iowa  that  it  did  not  need  protection. 

Mr.  Kasson.  I  beg  leave  to  correct  the  gentleman.  I  said  dis- 
tinctly that,  in  the  West,  on  the  prairies  and  on  the  plains,  where  land  is 
cheap,  grass  abundant,  and  the  winters  mild,  we  should  ultimately  be 
able  to  compete  with  the  world. 

Then  what  becomes  of  his  praise  of  the  superior  advantages 
of  South  America?  I  did  not  so  understand  the  gentleman. 
Now,  sir,  I  am  surprised  that  any  Representative  from  the  State 
of  Ohio,  where  we  have  six  million  sheep  and  where  we  raise  one 
fifth  of  all  the  wool  in  the  United  States,  should  be  found  to 
oppose  this  measure  as  being  framed  in  the  interest  of  New 
England. 

Let  me  notice  another  agricultural  feature  of  the  bill.  There 
are  fifty  ships  trading  constantly  with  Calcutta,  bringing  India 
flaxseed  to  our  shores.  In  order  to  encourage  the  home 
growth,  we  have  raised  the  duty  on  flaxseed  from  sixteen  to 
thirty  cents  per  bushel,  and  on  linseed  oil  from  twenty-three  to 
thirty  cents  per  gallon ;  yet  gentlemen  say  this  is  a  bill  for  New 

^  Mr.  Kasson. 
VOL.   I.  14 


210  THE   TARIFF  BILL   OF  1866. 

England.  If  there  be  any  protection  in  any  existing  law  more 
clearly  in  the  interest  of  agriculture,  I  should  be  obliged  to  any 
gentleman  if  he  will  name  it. 

Now,  I  do  not  deny  that  there  are  some  features  of  this  bill 
which  I  desire  to  see  changed.  I  believe  we  ought  to  reduce, 
and  I  believe  we  shall  reduce,  the  proposed  duty  on  several  ar- 
ticles named.  But  if  a  dozen  articles  out  of  the  hundreds  named 
in  the  bill  were  somewhat  reduced,  I  would  be  pleased  if  any 
gentleman  here  would  then  point  out  its  supposed  exorbitant 
features  and  alleged  enormities.  It  is  very  easy  to  join  in  a 
general  clamor  which  others  have  raised,  but  not  so  easy  to 
state  the  cause  of  the  outcry. 

Mr.  Farquhar.  I  desire  to  ask  the  gentleman  what,  in  his  judg- 
ment, would  be  the  effect  of  increasing  the  duty  on  railroad  iron  one 
hundred  per  cent,  as  it  is  increased  by  this  bill,  including  the  amount  of 
deduction  made  by  the  Internal  Revenue  Bill,  upon  the  great  interests 
of  the  West,  now  largely  engaged  in  the  construction  of  additional 
railways. 

I  am  willing,  as  a  compromise  and  to  favor  the  building  of 
railroads,  to  vote  for  a  reduction  of  the  proposed  duty  on  rail- 
road iron,  and  I  presume  the  Committee  of  Ways  and  Means 
will  agree  with  me  in  this.  I  think  we  should  also  reduce  the 
proposed  duty  on  salt,  and  I  have  no  doubt  in  several  other 
particulars  we  shall  be  able  to  reduce  the  rate  of  duty. 

Mr.  Stevens.  Why  not  at  once  come  out  honestly  and  accept  the 
proposition  of  the  gentleman  from  Iowa,*  which  is  a  much  better  and 
more  ingenious  one  ? 

I  will  tell  the  gentleman  why  before  I  am  done.  The  gen- 
tleman from  Iowa  2  says  wc  ought  not  to  adopt  the  policy  of 
protecting  those  industries  of  this  country  that  we  can  make 
money  at,  and  if  the  people  cannot  make  money  out  of  manu- 
facturing enterprises,  let  them  go  into  something  more  profitable. 
He  says  wc  can  raise  grain  for  the  world  without  protective 
legislation.  Let  me  repeat  to  him  a  little  of  the  history  of  grain- 
raising  in  this  country.  There  was  a  time  when  New  England 
was  a  great  grain-raising  country.  At  a  later  period,  New  York 
was  the  granary  of  the  New  World.  Later  still,  the  granary  was 
Pennsylvania,  then  Ohio ;  then  it  was  still  farther  to  the  west. 
But  what  is  the  situation  now?    New  England  raises  wheat  enough 

^  Mr.  Wilson.  2  i\^^  Kasson. 


THE   TARIFF  BILL    OF  i866.  21 1 

to  feed  her  people  three  weeks  in  the  year ;  New  York  raises 
enough  to  feed  her  people  six  months;  Pennsylvania  just  about 
enough  to  supply  the  wants  of  her  people,  with  none  to  spare ; 
and  Ohio  produces  a  surplus  of  three  million  bushels.  You 
must  now  go  to  the  prairies  of  the  West  before  you  reach  the 
granary  of  this  country.  Now,  I  wish  to  say  that  this  talk 
about  putting  our  people  wholly  into  the  business  of  raising 
grain  for  the  world  is  utterly  absurd  and  mischievous.  Let  me 
put  a  practical  question  to  these  extreme  free-trade  gentlemen 
in  reference  to  this  matter.  Suppose  that  to-day  we  were  at 
war  with  the  great  powers  of  Europe,  —  suppose  we  had  always 
been  practising  their  precepts,  and  were  engaged  wholly  in 
raising  grain,  —  having  no  manufacturing  establishments,  as  we 
should  not  have  had  but  for  the  protection  that  has  been  ac- 
corded to  that  kind  of  industry  by  our  predecessors,  —  should 
we  not  be  completely  at  the  mercy  of  the  other  nations  of  the 
earth?  Edward  Everett  declared  in  a  speech  in  183 1,  after 
making  a  careful  estimate,  that  the  extra  amount  paid  by  the 
government  of  the  United  States  for  woollen  blankets  and  cloth- 
ing for  their  soldiers  in  the  war  of  181 2  largely  exceeded  the 
amount  of  revenue  ever  derived  by  the  United  States  from  all 
its  tariffs  for  the  protection  of  all  our  industries  from  the  foun- 
dation of  the  government  to  1831  ;  and  that  it  would  have 
effected  a  great  saving  to  the  government  if  Congress  had  ex- 
pended many  millions  of  money  directly  from  the  treasury  before 
that  war,  and  had  built  up  and  had  in  readiness  these  manufac- 
tories for  the  use  of  the  government  during  the  war. 

Against  the  abstract  doctrine  of  free  trade,  as  such,  very  little 
can  be  said.  As  a  theory,  there  is  much  to  commend  it ;  but 
it  can  never  be  applied  to  nations,  except  in  time  of  peace.  It 
can  never  be  applied  to  the  nations  of  the  earth,  except  when 
they  are  on  the  same  range  of  growth  and  culture.  Let  war 
come,  and  it  utterly  destroys  and  overturns  the  whole  doctrine 
in  its  practical  application.     Says  Prcscott :  — 

"  Nothing  is  easier  than  to  parade  abstract  theorems,  true  in  the  ab- 
stract, in  political  economy ;  nothing  harder  than  to  reduce  them  to 
practice.  That  an  individual  will  understand  his  own  interests  better 
than  the  government  can,  or,  what  is  the  same  thing,  that  trade,  if  let 
alone,  will  fmd  its  way  into  the  channels  on  the  whole  most  advantageous 
to  the  community,  few  will  deny.  But  what  is  true  of  all  together  is  not 
true  of  any  one  singly ;  and  no  one  nation  can  safely  act  on  these  prin- 


212  THE   TARIFF  BILL    OF  1866. 

ciples  if  others  do  not.  In  point  of  fact,  no  nation  has  acted  on  them 
since  the  formation  of  the  present  political  communities  of  Europe.  All 
that  a  new  state,  or  a  new  government  in  an  old  one,  can  now  propose 
to  itself  is,  not  to  sacrifice  its  interests  to  a  speculative  abstraction,  but 
to  accommodate  its  institutions  to  the  great  political  system  of  which  it 
is  a  member.  On  these  principles,  and  on  the  higher  obligation  of  pro- 
viding the  means  of  national  independence  in  its  most  extended  sense, 
much  that  was  bad  in  the  economical  policy  of  Spain  at  the  period  under 
review  may  be  vindicated."  ^ 

The  example  of  England  has  been  held  up  before  us.  A 
word  about  that  example.  There  is  a  venerable  member  in  this 
hall  who  was  a  member  of  this  House  long  before  England  had 
professed  her  free-trade  doctrines, — while  she  was  one  of  the 
most  highly  protective  nations  on  the  face  of  the  earth.  For 
two  hundred  years  she  pursued  a  policy  that  was  absolutely 
prohibitory;  then  followed  a  protective  period ;  now  she  pro- 
fesses free  trade.  When  she  had  built  up  her  manufactures, 
and  had  become  able  to  compete  successfully  with  the  world  in 
matters  of  commerce,  she  graciously  invited  all  nations  to  drop 
their  protective  policy  and  become  free-traders.  It  is  like  a 
giant  or  an  athlete  who,  after  months  of  training,  asks  all  the 
delicate  clerks  and  students  to  come  out  and  fight  or  run  with 
him  on  equal  terms. 

I  have  before  me  a  statement  of  the  revenues  of  Great  Britain 
for  the  last  year.  Her  total  revenue  was  $354,000,000.  Of  this 
sum»  $115,000,000,  or  thirty-two  per  cent,  she  raised  from  cus- 
toms ;  and  it  is  a  remarkable  fact  that  that  is  precisely  the  per 
cent  of  our  revenue  that  was  raised  from  customs  last  year. 
This  shows  that  she  raises  as  much  by  her  tariff  as  we  do  by 
ours  in  proportion  to  the  amount  of  our  revenue.  If  gentlemen 
desire  simply  to  prostrate  us  before  England,  if  they  desire  to 
capitulate  to  her  in  commerce  as  we  never  have  capitulated  in 
arms,  let  them  follow  in  the  lead  of  these  free-trade  philoso- 
phers. I  hold  a  pamphlet  in  my  hand  that  was  laid  upon  the 
desks  of  members  this  morning;  and  in  reply  to  the  question 
of  my  colleague,^  Who  in  this  country  is  demanding  that  this 
bill  be  defeated  or  postponed?  I  will  tell  him.  Here  is  the 
address  of  the  Free-Trade  Association  of  London  to  the  Ameri- 
can Free-Trade  League,  and  if  I  had  time  I  would  read  a  few 

1  Ferdinand  and  Isabella,  Vol.  I.  p.  488  (Philadelphia,  1873). 
8  Mr.  Delano. 


THE   TARIFF  BILL   OF  x866.  213 


V 


extracts  from  it  Let  me  read  you  one  of  the  headings :  "  Pro- 
tection unnecessary  to  foster  manufactures  in  their  infancy/' 
They  have  evidently  outgrown  their  teachers,  for  John  Stuart 
Mill  admits  that  much.  England  never  taught  that  doctrine 
until  her  manufactures  had  passed  beyond  their  infancy,  and 
stood  breast-high  with  the  world  in  the  full  vigor  of  manhood. 
I  read  a  sentence  from  this  disinterested  lecture  of  English- 
men to  Americans,  —  of  the  shopkeeper  to  his  customer,  —  of 
the ''  nation  of  shopkeepers "  to  the  nation  of  customers  and 
grain-raisers  that  some  gentlemen  would  have  us  become: 
"  You  have  most  truly  remarked  in  your  constitution  that  pro- 
tection to  the  producer  means  robbery  to  the  consumer."  Now, 
the  gentleman  from  lowa^  who  has  just  made  his  speech  pro- 
ceeds upon  the  doctrine  that  protection  is  itself  robbery ;  and 
of  course  he  will  vote  against  this  bill,  and  against  all  other  bills 
that  propose  to  throw  any  protection  whatever  around  American 
industry. 

Two  propositions  are  before  the  House  to  keep  us  from  act- 
ing directly  upon  this  bill.  The  real  question  is,  Shall  we  pass 
the  bill  after  the  requisite  amendments  have  been  made?  But, 
fearing  it  may  pass,  the  gentleman  from  lowa^  picks  out  a  few 
pleasant  items  that  refer  mainly  to  the  West,  with  a  sprinkling 
for  the  East,  and  asks  us  to  have  the  bill  sent  back  to  the  com- 
mittee, with  instructions  to  report  those  items  alone.  He  offers 
a  bait  to  one  section  of  the  Union  to  induce  its  representatives 
to  neglect  another. 

Mr.  Speaker,  it  is  painful  to  listen  to  the  sectional  language 
that  we  hear  every  day  in  our  debates.  One  gentleman  sneers 
at  New  England,  and  says,  "  This  measure  is  a  New  England 
pet";  another  points  at  Pennsylvania,  and  hits  her  off  in  an 
epigrammatic  sentence;  another  turns  to  the  rough,  sturdy 
West,  and  splinters  his  lance  in  a  sharp  assault  upon  her.  I 
always  understood,  during  the  terrible  struggle  of  the  past  four 
years,  that  we  did  not  fight  for  New  England,  for  Pennsylvania, 
or  for  the  West,  but  wc  fought  for  the  Union,  with  all  its  one- 
ness, its  greatness,  and  its  glory.  And  if  we  are  now  to  come 
back,  after  the  victory  is  won,  and  hold  up  our  party  flags,  and 
talk  about  '*  our  section  *'  as  against  "  your  section,"  we  are 
neither  patriots  nor  friends.  There  should  be  no  division  of  in- 
terest in  all  great  matters  of  national  legislation.     And  if  New 

1  Mr.  Kasson.  ^  Mr.  Wilson. 


214  THE  TARIFF  BILL   OF  1866. 

England  has  advanced  further  than  Pennsylvania  or  the  West, 
and  does  not  so  much  need  protection,  she  must  bear  with  her 
sisters  until  they,  following  in  her  footsteps,  can  stand  on  a 
basis  of  equal  growth  and  prosperity.  I  hope,  therefore,  no 
such  partial  legislation  as  that  suggested  by  the  motion  of  the 
gentleman  from  Iowa  will  prevail.  I  should  be  ashamed  to  vote 
for  a  measure  that  singled  out  the  interests  of  my  own  State  and 
neglected  the  interests  of  others. 

Mr.  Wilson.  Peraiit  me  to  correct  the  gentleman,  for  he  is  entirely 
mistaken  in  regard  to  the  proposition  I  made.  It  does  not  pick  out  a 
few  interests,  but  leaves  a  margin  not  exceeding  twenty-five  per  cent  on 
everything  embraced  in  the  bill. 

I  want  to  say  in  regard  to  the  margin  of  twenty-five  per  cent, 
that  nothing  can  be  more  absurd  than  to  say  that  any  one  rate 
per  cent  shall  be  the  limit  put  upon  all  articles,  under  any  and 
all  circumstances.  And  that  reminds  me  of  a  point  which  I  was 
about  to  forget.  I  wish  to  call  the  attention  of  the  House  to 
the  reason  why  any  revision  of  the  tariff  is  heeded  at  this  time. 
The  present  tariff  law  was  passed  in  1864;  gold  was  then  at 
200,  and  it  rose  during  the  year  to  285.  Our  tariff  was  adjusted 
to  that  situation  of  the  currency;  and  what  would  be  highly 
protective  then  might  give  no  protection  now,  or  when  gold 
shall  be  as  low  as  it  has  been  since  this  House  met  in  session. 
That  is  the  great  trouble  with  us  now.  We  are  afloat  without 
any  fixed  standard  of  value,  and  that  which  would  be  a  proper 
duty  to-day  may  be  a  high  duty  to-morrow  and  a  low  one  next 
day.  I  greatly  regret  that  we  have  not  been  able  to  reach 
nearer  to  the  solid  basis  of  specie,  and  base  our  currency  and 
all  our  legislation  upon  some  fixed  standard.  But  while  we  are 
tossing  as  we  now  are,  going  up  and  down  twenty  and  thirty 
per  cent  on  gold  in  the  space  of  a  month,  it  is  necessary  that 
we  have  a  tariff,  temporarily  at  least,  that  will  safely  shield  the 
interests  of  the  country  until  we  have  passed  the  dangers  and 
reached  a  more  stable  financial  condition. 

One  other  proposition  has  been  submitted,  and  with  a  notice 
of  that  I  will  conclude.  The  gentleman  from  Massachusetts  * 
proposes  that  the  whole  subject  be  laid  over  until  another  winter. 
For  many  reasons  I  should  be  glad  if  we  could  have  more  time 
to  perfect  the  measure.  It  would  be  well  if  we  could  give  two 
or  three  months  of  careful  study  to  the  problems  connected 

1  Mr.  Dawes. 


THE   TARIFF  BILL   OF  1866.  215 

with  this  bill.  But  gentlemen  must  remember  that  the  chances 
and  changes  of  the  next  five  or  six  months  may  be  disastrous 
to  our  industries,  if  we  do  not,  before  the  close  of  this  session, 
adopt  some  legislation  to  protect  them  against  sudden  danger. 
I  am  sorry,  therefore,  that  my  friend  from  Massachusetts  saw 
fit  to  offer  that  proposition ;  it  is  really  only  another  mode  of 
killing  the  bill,  and  I  can  hardly  believe  that  he  desires  such  a 
result 

I  hope,  sir,  that  both  the  propositions  to  which  I  have  re- 
ferred will  be  voted  down ;  that  we  shall  amend  the  bill  in  sev- 
eral particulars,  making  it  as  equitable  as  possible  in  all  its 
provisions ;  and  that  we  shall  pass  it.  And  when  the  country 
comes  to  understand  clearly  what  we  have  done,  I  believe  that 
the  clamor  of  which  we  have  heard  so  much  will  cease,  and  that 
the  wisdom  of  the  measure  will  be  vindicated. 


NATIONAL    POLITICS. 

SPEECH    DELIVERED    AT    WARREN,    OHIO. 

September  i,  1866. 


FELLOW-<;iTIZENS,— The  great  conflict  of  arms  through 
which  the  nation  has  passed,  the  many  and  peculiar  con- 
sequences resulting  therefrom,  and  especially  the  new  duties 
devolving  upon  the  people,  must,  for  the  present  and  for  many 
years  to  come,  be  the  chief  topics  of  political  discussion.  The 
stupendous  facts  of  the  Rebellion  overshadow  and  involve  all 
other  political  considerations,  and  the  new  problems  arising 
out  of  the  contest  are  beset  with  difficulties  of  unusual  magni- 
tude. The  work  of  overcoming  these  difficulties  and  solving 
these  problems  has  been  committed  by  the  good  people  of  the 
United  States  to  their  representatives  in  the  legislative,  execu- 
tive and  judicial  departments  of  the  Federal  government,  and 
some  progress  has  been  made  during  the  past  year  in  overcom- 
ing them.  I  shall  undertake  to  show  you,  my  fellow-citizens, 
what  progress  the  servants  of  the  people  have  made  in  the 
discharge  of  these  high  duties.  I  shall  speak  of  the  progress 
made  during  the  past  year  in, — 
I.  Our  financial  affairs; 
II.   Our  military  affairs ; 

III.   The  restoration  of  the  States  lately  in  rebellion. 

First,  our  financial  affairs.  The  pecuniary  cost  of  the  war 
was  enormous,  and  without  a  parallel  in  history.  It  is  impos- 
sible even  to  comprehend  the  sum  expended.  It  can  only  be 
understood  when  compared  with  other  expenditures.  In  the 
statements  I  shall  make  concerning  the  cost  of  the  war,  let  it 
be  remembered  that  I  do  not  include  the  loss  occasioned  by 
the  withdrawal  of  more  than  two  millions  of  laborers  from  in- 
dustrial pursuits,  nor  the  vast  sums  expended  by  States,  counties, 


NATIONAL  POLITICS.  217 

cities,  and  individuals  in  payment  of  bounties,  and  for  the  relief 
of  sick  and  wounded  soldiers  and  their  families,  nor  the  larger 
losses,  which  can  never  be  estimated,  of  property  destroyed  by 
hostile  armies.  The  cost  of  which  I  shall  speak  is  that  which 
appears  on  the  books  of  the  Federal  Treasury. 

For  three  quarters  of  a  century  the  debt  of  Great  Britain  has 
been  considered  the  financial  wonder  of  the  world.  That  debt, 
which  had  its  origin  in  the  Revolution  of  1688,  was  swelled  by 
more  than  one  hundred  years  of  wars,  and  other  political  dis- 
asters, till,  in  1793,  it  had  reached  the  sum  of  $1,268,000,000. 
From  that  time  till  1815,  a  period  of  twenty-two  years  of  terri- 
ble war,  England  was  engaged  in  a  life  and  death  struggle  with 
Napoleon,  —  the  greatest  war  of  history  save  our  own,  —  and 
at  its  close,  in  181 5,  she  had  added  $3,056,000,000  to  her  debt, 
a  sum  which  all  the  world  thought  must  bring  her  to  financial 
ruin.  From  the  30th  of  June,  i860,  to  the  30th  of  June,  1865, 
the  expenditures  of  the  government  of  the  United  States  were 
more  than  $3,500,000,000;  that  is,  in  five  years,  we  increased 
our  debt  $500,000,000  more  than  England  increased  hers  in 
twenty-two  years  of  her  greatest  war,  —  almost  as  much  as  she 
increased  it  in  one  hundred  and  twenty-five  years  of  war. 

But  let  us  compare  ourselves  with  ourselves.  Our  official 
records  show  that  the  total  cost  of  our  war  of  Independence 
was  $135,000,000,  and  the  total  expenditure  of  the  Federal 
government,  from  the  meeting  of  the  First  Congress  on  the  4th 
of  March,  1789,  to  June  30,  i860,  was  $2,015,000,000;  making 
the  total  expenditures  from  the  beginning  of  the  Revolution  in 
1775  to  the  beginning  of  the  Rebellion,  $2,150,000,000.  That 
is,  the  expenses  of  the  last  five  years  have  been  $1,350,000,000 
more  than  all  the  previous  expenses  since  the  government  was 
founded. 

According  to  the  census  of  i860,  the  total  value  of  all  the 
real  and  personal  property  in  the  United  States  was  sixteen 
billions  of  dollars ;  the  cost  of  the  war  was  more  than  three 
and  a  half  billions,  —  that  is,  every  one  hundred  and  sixty  dol- 
lars' worth  of  property  became  liable  for  the  payment  of  thirty- 
five  dollars  of  war  expenses.  Our  debt  is  part  of  the  money 
price  which  the  nation  pledged  to  save  its  existence,  and  we 
are  bound  by  the  sense  of  gratitude,  of  honor,  and  of  patriotism 
to  redeem  that  pledge,  principal  and  interest,  to  the  uttermost 
farthing.     The  loyal  people  have  accepted  the  responsibility, 


2i8  NATIONAL  POLITICS. 

and  cheerfully  consent  to  bear  the  burden  of  such  taxes  as 
would  hardly  be  endured  by  any  other  nation.  Indeed,  a  lead- 
ing English  journal  has  recently  declared  that,  if  Parliament 
should  impose  a  tax  upon  the  English  people  as  heavy  as  the 
one  now  paid  by  the  people  of  the  United  States,  it  would 
cause  a  rebellion  in  that  kingdom. 

More  than  $800,000,000  of  our  expenses  was  paid  by  taxa- 
tion while  the  war  was  in  progress,  and  during  the  last  fiscal 
year,  besides  paying  our  heavy  annual  expenses,  we  have  re- 
duced the  debt  $124,000,000;  so  that,  on  the  ist  of  August, 
1866,  our  debt  stood  at  $2,633,000,000.  Should  we  be  able  to 
reduce  it  at  the  same  rate  hereafter,  the  last  dollar  of  it  would 
be  paid  in  twenty-one  years.  Nearly  all  of  this  debt  is  held  by 
citizens  of  the  United  States,  who  loaned  their  money  to  the 
government  at  a  time  when  traitors  were  hoping,  and  faint- 
hearted friends  were  fearing,  that  our  cause  would  be  lost.  It 
was  a  sublime  and  inspiring  spectacle  to  see  the  loyal  millions, 
from  the  wealthy  capitalist  to  the  day  laborer,  offering  their 
substance  as  a  loan  to  the  government,  when  their  only  hope 
of  return  rested  in  their  faith  in  the  justice  of  our  cause  and 
the  success  of  our  arms.  There  were  single  days  in  which 
$25,000,000  was  thus  offered.  Less  than  half  the  debt  is  now 
in  long  bonds,  which  have  from  fifteen  to  thirty-five  years  to 
run,  but  $1,600,000,000  will  fall  due  within  two  years  and  a 
half.  As  they  cannot  be  paid  by  taxation  in  so  short  a  time. 
Congress  at  its  last  session  passed  a  loan  bill,  authorizing  the 
Secretary  of  the  Treasury  to  retire  these  short  bonds,  and  put 
out  in  their  stead  long  bonds,  if  practicable,  at  a  lower  rate 
of  interest.  The  bill,  however,  did  not  authorize  any  increase 
of  the  debt,  but  only  an  exchange  of  long  bonds  for  short  ones, 
which  is  now  being  effected. 

Intimately  connected  with  our  public  debt  is  our  national 
currency.  At  the  breaking  out  of  the  war,  the  currency  of  the 
country  consisted  of  gold  and  silver,  and  the  circulating  notes 
of  sixteen  hundred  banks,  organized  under  the  laws  of  the  dif- 
ferent States.  The  notes  of  these  banks,  not  being  based  upon 
any  uniform  security,  were  of  different  relative  value,  and  were 
always  of  less  value  as  they  were  farther  from  home.  Our  pa- 
per-money system  had  become  a  grievous  evil,  for  which  there 
seemed  to  be  no  remedy.  But  tjie  necessities  of  the  war  com- 
pelled the  government  to  take  some  new  step,  and  the  oppor- 


NATIONAL  POLITICS.  219 

tunity  was  fortunately  seized  by  our  distinguished  Secretary  of 
the  Treasury,  Salmon  P.  Chase,  to  sweep  away  the  vicious  sys- 
tem of  State  banks,  which  had  grown  up  in  defiance  of  the  plain 
declaration  of  the  Constitution,  that  **  no  State  shall  emit  bills  of 
credit,  or  make  anything  but  gold  and  silver  coin  a  tender  in 
payment  of  debts,"  and  to  substitute  in  its  place  our  present  cir- 
culation of  greenbacks  and  national  bank  notes.  When  a  citizen 
holds  a  dollar  of  this  bank  paper  in  his  hand,  he  knows  that 
there  is  one  dollar  and  ten  cents  in  government  bonds  locked 
up  in  the  vaults  of  the  treasury  at  Washington  and  pledged 
for  its  redemption,  in  case  the  bank  should  fail.  This  dollar  is 
national,  and  not  local.    It  is  the  same  in  Minnesota  as  in  Maine. 

But  another  and  still  more  important  advantage  has  been 
gained  by  the  change  in  our  system  of  currency.  Under  the 
old  system,  the  general  government  had  no  control  over  the 
amount  of  currency  in  circulation.  Each  bank  issued  notes  in 
accordance  with  the  laws  of  the  State  in  which  it  was  organized. 
Now,  it  is  a  well-settled  principle  of  finance,  that  no  more 
money  is  needed  in  any  country  than  just  the  amount  necessary 
to  effect  the  payments  to  be  made  in  that  country.  If  there  be 
less  than  that  amount,  the  money  market  is  stringent,  and  ex- 
changes are  difficult;  if  there  be  more,  the  surplus  causes  a 
rise  in  prices,  or,  v/hat  is  the  same  thing,  a  depreciation  of  the 
value  of  each  dollar.  By  taking  the  control  of  the  currency 
into  its  own  hands,  Congress  was  enabled  to  regulate  the  amount 
of  circulation  in  accordance  with  the  necessities  of  business. 

The  vast  expenditures  of  the  war  required  a  large  increase 
of  the  volume  of  the  currency.  Before  the  war,  about  three 
hundred  millions  of  money  was  needed  for  the  business  of  the 
country.  Much  of  the  time  during  the  war,  we  had  more  than 
one  thousand  millions.  Now  that  we  are  returning  to  the  pur- 
suits of  peace,  it  becomes  necessary  to  reduce  the  amount  of 
our  paper  money,  and  thus  bring  prices  down  to  the  old  stan- 
dard. To  determine  whether  there  is  too  much  currency  in 
circulation  is  always  difficult,  but  the  best  criterion  is  the  price 
of  gold.  We  may  be  certain  that  in  times  of  peace,  when 
there  are  no  great  disturbing  political  causes  at  work,  if  a  paper 
dollar  is  worth  much  less  than  a  gold  dollar,  there  are  many 
more  paper  dollars  than  the  business  of  the  country  demands. 
Therefore,  in  the  Loan  Bill,  Congress  provides  for  a  gradual 
contraction  of  the  currency.     Under  the  operation  of  that  law. 


220  NATIONAL  POLITICS. 

and  with  a  judicious  management  of  our  revenues,  we  may 
expect  a  gradual  decline  in  gold,  and  a  corresponding  fall  in 
prices,  until  we  shall  reach  the  solid  basis  of  gold  and  silver. 
An  uncertain  and  changeable  standard  of  value  is  a  great  finan- 
cial evil.  If  the  dollar  of  to-day  shall  be  worth  a  dollar  and  a 
half  in  six  months  from  now,  the  debtor  must  pay  fifty  cents 
more  than  he  promised;  if  in  six  months  the  dollar  shall  be 
worth  that  much  less,  the  creditor  would  suffer  a  similar  loss. 

Here  let  me  remark  that,  if  the  Democratic  party,  which  holds 
to  the  extreme  doctrine  of  State  rights,  should  come  into  power, 
they  would,  without  doubt,  sweep  away  our  national  currency 
system,  and  return  to  the  wretched  system  of  State  banks  and 
State  currency. 

The  maintenance  of  our  national  credit,  and  the  ultimate 
redemption  of  our  national  debt,  must  depend  mainly  on  a 
wise,  just,  but  severe  system  of  Federal  taxation.  Until  the 
beginning  of  the  late  war,  but  one  of  the  great  nations  of  the 
earth  was  so  lightly  taxed  as  our  own.  We  had  not  studied 
the  science  of  taxation,  because,  happily,  we  had  no  need  to 
do  so.  But  the  war  brought  the  heaviest  burdens  upon  our 
people,  and  when  the  Thirty-ninth  Congress  assembled,  we 
found  that  many  of  our  taxes  were  levied  upon  those  branches 
of  industry  which  were  least  able  to  bear  them.  Nearly  all 
our  revenues  are  derived  from  two  sources,  viz.  the  customs 
or  tariff  duties,  and  internal  taxes.  Congress  made  at  the  late 
session  a  thorough  revision  of  the  internal  revenue  system,  and 
it  is  believed  that  many  important  improvements  have  been 
made.  The  provisions  of  the  revenue  law  of  July  13,  1866,  are 
based  upon  the  following  general  principles :  — - 

1.  Taxes  which  tend  to  discourage  the  development  of  wealth 
should  be  abolished  or  greatly  reduced,  and  the  law  be  so  ad- 
justed that  the  burdens  shall  chiefly  fall  on  realized  property. 

2.  Taxes  should  not  be  duplicated  by  taxing  the  different 
processes  through  which  an  article  passes  in  being  manufac- 
tured, but  the  tax  should  be  laid  upon  the  finished  article  when 
ready  for  sale. 

3.  Articles  of  prime  necessity,  like  provisions,  clothing,  agri- 
cultural implements,  should  be  nearly  or  quite  exempt  from 
taxation,  and  the  public  burdens  should  fall  upon  articles  which 
minister  to  vice  and  luxury. 

Guided    by  these  general    principles,  and    finding   that   the 


NATIONAL  POLITICS.  221 

ample  revenues  of  the  goverament  would  enable  us  to  reduce  the 
amount  of  taxation  seventy-five  millions,  Congress  proceeded 
to  exempt  entirely  from  taxation  building  materials,  such  as 
building  stone,  slate,  marble,  brick,  tiles,  window  glass,  paint, 
painter's  colors,  linseed  oil  and  other  vegetable  oils,  lime,  and 
Roman  cement;  also  repairs  of  all  kinds;  also  agricultural 
implements  and  products,  such  as  machinery  for  the  manufac- 
ture of  sugar,  syrup,  and  molasses  from  sorghum,  imphee,  beets 
and  com,  ploughs,  cultivators,  harrows,  planters,  seed  drills, 
hand  rakes,  grain  cradles,  reapers,  mowers,  threshing  machines, 
winnowing  mills,  corn  shellers,  and  cotton  gins ;  also  such  ar- 
ticles of  prime  necessity  as  gypsum,  and  fertilizers  of  all  kinds, 
maple,  beet,  sorghum,  and  beet  sugar,  and  molasses,  vinegar, 
saleratus,  starch,  and  soap  valued  at  less  than  three  cents  per 
pound;  also  American  steel  and  railroad  iron;  and,  finally, 
all  tombstones  valued  at  less  than  $ioo,  and  all  monuments, 
whether  erected  by  public  or  private  munificence,  to  commemo- 
rate the  service  of  Union  soldiers  who  fell  in  battle  or  died  in 
the  service.  They  reduced  the  tax  on  clothing  and  on  boots 
and  shoes  from  six  per  cent  to  two  per  cent ;  exempted  milliners 
and  dress-makers  from  tax,  and  exempted  shoemakers  and 
tailors  the  value  of  whose  work  exclusive  of  materials  does  not 
exceed  one  hundred  dollars  per  annum.  The  tax  on  slaughtered 
animals,  being  a  war  tax,  was  repealed.  Except  cotton  and  to- 
bacco, no  agricultural  product  is  now  taxed  at  all.  No  license 
or  special  tax  is  now  required  of  farmers,  while  all  other  pursuits 
and  professions  are  required  to  pay  such  a  tax,  from  ten  to  one 
thousand  dollars,  and  more,  in  proportion  to  the  amount  of  the 
business  done. 

As  an  illustration  of  the  vicious  system  of  duplication  of  taxes, 
it  was  found  that  by  the  time  an  American  book  was  sold  in  the 
market  there  had  been  paid  from  twelve  to  fifteen  separate  taxes 
upon  it.  Each  constituent  part  of  the  book  —  paper,  cloth, 
leather,  boards,  thread,  glue,  gold-leaf,  and  type  material  —  had 
paid  a  tax  of  from  three  to  five  per  cent,  and  the  finished  article, 
when  sold,  had  paid  a  tax  of  five  per  cent  upon  the  selling  price. 
The  law  was  therefore  so  amended  as  to  remove  the  tax  from  the 
separate  parts  and  processes,  and  levy  it  on  the  finished  product. 
On  this  principle  the  tax  on  mineral  coal,  pig-iron,  and  castings 
for  parts  of  machinery,  was  repealed,  and  placed  upon  the  ma- 
chine when  finished.     The  tax  was  removed  from  crude  petro- 


222  NATIONAL  POLITICS, 

leum,  and  placed  upon  the  refined  article  when  ready  for  use. 
The  tax  on  stoves  and  hollow  ware  for  domestic  use  was  re- 
duced from  six  to  three  dollars  per  ton.  That  our  educational 
forces  might  not  be  weakened,  the  tax  on  books,  magazines, 
newspapers,  printing  paper,  and  all  printing  material,  was  greatly 
reduced.  The  heaviest  taxes  are  now  levied  on  distilled  spirits, 
ale,  beer,  tobacco,  cigars,  refined  petroleum,  cotton,  gas,  car- 
riages of  high  value,  and  gold  and  silver  plate ;  but  silver  table 
ware  used  by  any  one  family,  not  exceeding  forty  ounces,  is 
exempt  from  tax.  Fifty  per  cent  of  all  our  internal  taxes  arc 
raised  on  manufactures.  Stamp  taxes,  another  very  productive 
source  of  revenue,  are  nearly  all  paid  by  the  business  men  of  the 
country. 

Our  second  source  of  revenue  is  the  customs  duties  on  im- 
ported goods,  from  which  we  realize  about  one  third  of  all  our 
revenues.  A  carefully  revised  tariff  bill  passed  the  House,  but 
was  postponed  in  the  Senate  till  the  next  session.  It  provided 
for  increased  protection  on  American  wool,  linseed,  tobacco 
and  cigars,  iron  and  steel,  and  the  various  articles  manufactured 
from  them.  A  bill  was  passed,  however,  which  will  indirectly 
effect  a  considerable  increase  of  tariff  duties.  As  the  law  before 
stood,  the  ad  valorem  duties  on  imports  were  levied  on  the  price 
at  which  the  articles  were  purchased  in  the  foreign  country,  ex- 
clusive of  cost  of  transportation  to  the  seaboard  and  the  port 
charges.  Importers  bought  their  goods  far  in  the  interior,  and 
consequently  paid  the  duty  on  a  price  much  lower  than  the 
article  could  be  bought  for  at  the  point  of  export.  By  the  new 
law  the  duty  is  to  be  levied  on  the  articles  after  all  the  transpor- 
tation, storage,  weighagc,  wharfage,  and  port  charges  have  been 
added  to  the  original  purchase  price.  This  will  both  increase 
the  duties  and  protect  the  government  against  fraud. 

On  the  general  question  of  protection  there  are  great  extremes 
of  opinion  among  the  people  of  the  United  States,  and  these  ex- 
tremes appear  in  full  strength  among  their  representatives  in 
Congress.  One  class  would  have  us  place  so  high  a  duty  upon 
foreign  merchandise  as  to  prohibit  the  importation  of  any  ar- 
ticle which  this  country  produces  or  can  produce.  Besides 
placing  us  in  an  attitude  of  perpetual  hostility  to  other  nations, 
and  greatly  reducing  our  carrying  trade,  this  policy  would  tend 
to  make  monopolists  of  all  the  leading  manufacturers  of  this 
country,  who  could  fix  the  price  of  all  their  products  at  their 
own  discretion. 


NATIONAL  FOLITICS. 


223 


If,  on  the  other  hand,  we  should  adopt  the  theories  of  the 
radical  free-trader,  and  declare  that  our  tariff  shall  be  all  for 
revenue  and  nothing  for  protection,  and  particularly  should  that 
doctrine  be  put  in  practice  at  such  a  time  as  1836,  when  we  had 
no  debt,  and  a  large  surplus  in  the  treasury,  no  one  can  fail  to 
see  that  we  should  break  down  the  dikes  which  our  predecessors 
have  erected  for  the  defence  of  American  industries  which  pro- 
duce nearly  one  half  the  annual  income  of  the  people.  It  would 
revolutionize  our  industrial  system,  and  place  us  at  the  mercy 
of  foreign  manufacturers.  Let  either  of  these  parties  frame  the 
tariff,  and  the  result  will  be  calamitous  in  the  highest  degree. 

One  of  the  worst  features  of  our  industrial  system  is  the 
irregularity  and  the  uncertainty  of  the  legislation  in  reference 
to  the  tariff.  It  subjects  the  business  of  manufacturers  to  the 
uncertainty  of  a  lottery.  If  the  high  protectionists  succeed  one 
year,  the  profits  •  of  the  manufacturers  are  enormous ;  if,  as  is 
quite  probable,  the  reaction  of  the  next  year  puts  free-traders 
in  power,  their  losses  are  equally  great.  What,  then,  is  the 
point  of  equilibrium  where  we  can  balance  these  great  indus- 
tries with  the  most  reasonable  hope  of  permanence  ?  We  have 
seen  that  one  extreme  school  of  economists  would  place  the 
price  of  all  manufactured  articles  in  the  hands  of  foreign  pro- 
ducers, by  rendering  it  impossible  for  our  manufacturers  to 
compete  with  them;  while  the  other  extreme  school,  by  making 
it  impossible  for  the  foreigners  to  sell  their  competing  wares  in 
our  market,  would  leave  no  check  upon  the  prices  which  our 
manufacturers  might  fix  upon  their  products.  I  hold,  therefore, 
that  a  properly  adjusted  competition  between  home  and  foreign 
products  is  the  best  gauge  by  which  to  regulate  international 
trade.  Duties  should  be  so  high  that  our  manufacturers  can 
fairly  compete  with  foreign  manufacturers,  but  not  so  high  as 
to  enable  them  to  drive  out  foreign  articles,  enjoy  a  monopoly, 
and  regulate  the  prices  as  they  please.  To  this  extent  I  am  a 
protectionist.  If  our  government  pursues  this  line  of  policy 
steadily,  we  shall,  year  by  year,  approach  more  nearly  the  basis 
of  free  trade,  because  we  shall  be  more  nearly  able  to  compete 
with  other  nations  on  equal  terms.  I  am  for  that  protection 
which  leads  to  ultimate  free  trade ;  I  am  for  that  free  trade 
which  can  be  achieved  only  through  protection. 

Secondly,  our  military  affairs.  When  the  Rebellion  col- 
lapsed, in  1865,  we  had  on  the  rolls  of  the  army  and  in  the  pay 


224  NATIONAL  POLITICS. 

of  the  government  over  one  million  soldiers.  A  few  weeks  later 
a  larger  army  than  was  ever  actually  engaged  in  one  battle,  with 
a  rare  perfection  of  discipline  and  completeness  of  military  out- 
fit, marched  in  review  before  the  President  and  his  Cabinet  at 
Washington ;  mustered  out  of  service,  these  soldiers  quietly  re- 
sumed the  pursuits  of  peace,  and  mingled  again  with  the  mass 
of  citizens.  There  had  been  in  the  field  more  than  two  millions 
of  Union  soldiers,  of  whom  two  hundred  and  fifty  thousand  per- 
ished in  battle  and  by  disease,  and  almost  as  many  more  came 
home  nearly  or  quite  disabled  by  the  accidents  of  war.  In 
January  last  the  army  had  been  reduced  to  one  hundred  and 
twenty-three  thousand  men,  and  Congress  has  now  fixed  its 
numbers  for  the  future  at  about  fifty-five  thousand.  In  reor- 
ganizing the  army,  and  adding  new  regiments.  Congress  has  pro- 
vided that  all  company  officers  needed  to  fill  the  places  result- 
ing from  the  increase  of  the  regular  army,  and  two  thirds  of  the 
field  officers,  shall  be  taken  from  the  volunteers,  to  be  selected 
from  officers  or  enlisted  men,  no  distinction  being  made  between 
them.  But  applicants  must  produce  evidence  of  good  character 
and  capacity,  stand  an  examination  before  a  board,  and  show,  in 
addition  to  their  testimonials,  that  they  have  faithfully  and  effi- 
ciently served,  cither  as  officers  or  men,  at  some  time  during  the 
war  against  the  Rebellion.  Congress  has  also  provided  that  four 
regiments  of  infantry  and  two  regiments  of  cavalry  shall  be  col- 
ored men,  and  their  officers  shall  be  selected  from  those  officers 
who  commanded  colored  troops  during  the  war.  It  is  also  pro- 
vided that  four  regiments  shall  be  made  up  of  officers  and  en- 
listed men  who  received  injuries  while  in  the  service  of  their 
country,  but  are  still  able  to  perform  garrison  duty  and  other 
light  service. 

The  pension  list  has  been  largely  increased,  and  the  pensions 
of  soldiers  and  sailors  who  have  lost  both  arms  or  both  legs  have 
been  doubled.  No  patriot  will  object  to  the  increased  burden 
imposed  upon  him  in  discharging  his  sacred  duty  to  those 
heroic  sufferers. 

The  legislation  in  reference  to  equalizing  bounties  was  not  so 
satisfactory.  It  was  very  desirable  to  pass  some  law  by  which 
the  bounties  to  volunteers  should  be  made  to  approach  equality. 
A  considerable  portion  of  the  army  received  no  bounties,  while 
others  received  large  local,  State,  and  national  bounties.  It  is 
a  difficult  question  to  settle  on  any  just  basis  without  involving 


NATIONAL  POLITICS.  225 

the  government  in  a  dangerous  increase  of  the  public   debt. 
After  mature  deliberation  the  Military  Committee  of  the  House 
brought  in  a  bill  which  provided  that  every  soldier  who  had  re- 
ceived no  bounty  should  be  paid  eight  and  one  third  dollars  for 
every  month  of  honorable  service,  which  would  be  one  hundred 
dollars  for  each  full  year.     If  he  had  received  a  bounty,  but  less 
than  that  amount,  the  government  should  {:>ay  him  the  deficit ; 
so  that  every  soldier  in  the  Union  army  should  receive  a  bounty 
of  at  least  one  hundred  dollars  for  each  year  of  honorable  ser- 
vice.    This  bill  passed  the  House  by  the  unanimous  vote  of  the 
Union  members,  but  the  Senate  took  no  action  upon  it.     Near 
the  close  of  the  session  the  Senate  added  to  an  appropriation 
bill  a  section  increasing  the  pay  of  members  of  Congress.     The 
House  refused  to  concur,  but  added  in  place  of  that  section  the 
House  Bounty  Bill.     The  Senate  refused  to  concur,  but  after 
several   conferences    between   the   two   houses,  a  section   was 
agreed  upon  which  gives  a  bounty  of  one  hundred  dollars  to 
every  soldier  who  enlisted  and  served  three  years,  and  who  has 
not  already  received  more  than  one  hundred  dollars  bounty,  and 
a  bounty  of  fifty  dollars  to  every  soldier  who  enlisted  and  served 
for  the  term  of  two  years,  and  who  has  not  already  received  a 
bounty  of  more  than  one  hundred  dollars.     The  operation  of 
this  section    is   confined   exclusively  to  these   two  classes ;    it 
gives  no  more  for  four  years'  service  than  for  three,  and  gives 
nothing  to  those  soldiers  who    enlisted  for   a    less  term   than 
two  years.     It  is  much  less  just  than  the  flouse  bill,  and,  since 
it  was  coupled  with  a  section  which  increases  the  pay  of  mem- 
bers of  Congress,  I  voted  against  both  sections.     They  passed 
the  House,    however,  by  a  majority  of  one,  and   became  law. 
It  is  hoped  and  believed   that  the  original  flouse  bill,  or  some 
equivalent  measure,  will  become  a  law  at  the  next  session. 

Although  measures  of  financial  and  military  legislation  are 
worthy  of  the  earnest  attention  of  every  citizen,  I  fear  I  have 
already  dwelt  too  long  upon  them.  I  therefore  invite  your 
attention  to  the  questions  that  so  nearly  concern  our  future 
peace,  that  form  the  great  issues  which  must  be  settled  by  the 
ballots  of  the  people  at  the  coming  election. 

Thirdly,  the  restoration  of  the  late  Rebel  States.  For  a  clear 
understanding  of  the  issues,  let  us  consider  the  character  of  the 
contest  through  which  we  have  passed. 

The  Rebellion  had  its  origin  in  two  causes;   first,  the  political 

VOL.  I.  15 


226  NATIONAL  POLITICS. 

theory  of  State  Sovereignty,  and  second,  the  historical  accident 
of  American  slavery.  The  doctrine  of  State  Sovereignty,  or 
State  Rights  as  it  has  been  more  mildly  designated,  was  first 
publicly  announced  in  the  Virginia  Resolutions  of  1798,  but  was 
more  fully  elaborated  and  enforced  by  Calhoun  in  1830  and 
1833.  Since  that  time  it  has  been  acknowledged  as  a  funda- 
mental principle  in  the  creed  of  the  Democratic  party,  and  has 
been  affirmed  and  reaffirmed  in  some  form  in  nearly  all  its  State 
and  national  platforms  for  the  last  thirty  years.  That  doctrine, 
as  stated  by  Calhoun  in  1833,  is  in  substance  this:  "The  Con- 
stitution of  the  United  States  is  a  compact  to  which  the  people 
of  each  State  acceded  as  a  separate  and  sovereign  community ; 
therefore  it  has  an  equal  right  to  judge  for  itself  as  well  of  the 
infraction  as  of  the  mode  and  measure  of  redress.'*  The  same 
party  identified  itself  with  the  interests  of  American  slavery,  and, 
lifting  from  it  the  great  weight  of  odium  which  the  fathers  of  the 
republic  had  laid  upon  it,  became  its  champion  and  advocate. 

When  the  party  of  freedom  had  awakened  the  conscience  of 
the  nation,  and  had  gained  such  strength  as  to  show  the  De- 
mocracy that  slavery  was  forever  checked  in  its  progress,  and 
that  its  ultimate  extinction  by  legislative  authority  was  fore- 
doomed, the  Democratic  leaders  of  the  South  joined  in  a  mad 
conspiracy  to  save  and  perpetuate  slavery  by  destroying  the 
Union.  In  the  name  of  State  Sovereignty  they  declared  that 
secession  was  a  constitutional  right,  and  they  resolved  to  en- 
force it  by  arms.  They  declared  that,  as  the  Constitution  to 
which  each  State  in  its  sovereign  capacity  acceded  created  no 
common  judge  to  which  a  matter  of  difference  could  be  referred, 
each  State  might  also  in  its  sovereign  capacity  secede  from  the 
compact,  might  dissolve  the  Union,  might  annihilate  the  repub- 
lic. The  Democracy  of  eleven  slave  States  undertook  the  work. 
As  far  as  possible,  they  severed  every  tie  that  bound  them  to 
the  Union.  They  withdrew  their  representatives  from  every 
department  of  the  Federal  government;  they  seized  all  the 
Federal  property  within  the  limits  of  their  States;  they  abol- 
ished all  the  Federal  courts  and  every  other  vestige  of  Federal 
authority  within  their  reach ;  they  changed  all  their  State  con- 
stitutions, transferring  their  allegiance  to  a  gov^ernmcnt  of  their 
own  creation,  styled  the  '*  Confederate  States  of  America " ; 
they  assumed  sovereign  power,  and,  gathering  up  every  possi- 
ble element  of  force,  assailed  the  Union  in  the  most  savage  and 


NATIONAL  POLITICS.  227 

merciless  war  known  to  civilized  nations.  It  was  not,  as  some 
maintain,  merely  a  lawless  insurrection  of  individual  traitors; 
it  was  '*  a  civil  territorial  war,"  waged  by  eight  millions  of  trai- 
tors, acting  through  eleven  traitor  States  consolidated  into  a 
gigantic  despotism  of  treason,  —  a  government  de  facto ^  to 
which  the  laws  of  nations  accorded  belligerent  rights.  The 
Confederacy  was  acknowledged  as  a  belligerent  by  all  the  lead- 
ing nations  of  Europe,  and  at  last  by  every  department  of  the 
government  of  the  United  States;  by  the  Supreme  Court  in 
the  celebrated  prize  cases  of  1862,  and  by  repeated  acts  of  both 
the  executive  and  legislative  departments. 

Never  was  an  issue  more  clearly  made  up  or  more  desper- 
ately contested.  The  Confederates  fought  for  slavery  and  the 
right  of  secession,  for  the  destruction  of  the  Union  and  the 
establishment  of  a  government  based  on  slavery ;  the  loyal 
millions  fought  to  destroy  the  Rebellion  and  its  causes.  They 
fought  to  save  slavery  by  means  of  disunion;  we  fought  to 
establish  both  liberty  and  union,  and  to  make  them  one  and 
inseparable  now  and  forever.  It  was  a  life  and  death  struggle 
between  ideas  that  could  no  longer  dwell  together  in  the  same 
political  society.  There  could  be  no  compromise,  there  could 
be  no  peace,  while  both  were  left  alive.  The  one  must  perish 
if  the  other  triumphed. 

There  was  no  compromise.  The  struggle  was  continued  to 
the  bitter  end.  In  the  larger  meaning  of  the  word,  there  was 
no  surrender.  The  Rebels  did  not  lay  down  their  arms,  for  the 
soldiers  of  the  Union  wrenched  them  from  their  grasp.  They 
did  not  strike  their  traitor  flag;  it  was  shot  down  by  loyal  bul- 
lets. The  Rebel  army  never  was  disbanded ;  its  regiments  and 
brigades  were  mustered  out  by  the  shot  and  shell  of  our  victo- 
rious armies.  They  never  pulled  down  the  Confederate  govern- 
ment, but  its  blazing  rafters  fell  amidst  the  conflagration  of  war, 
and  its  ashes  were  scattered  by  the  whirlwind  of  battle. 

And  now,  fellow-citizens,  after  the  completest  victory  ever 
won  by  human  valor,  —  a  victory  for  the  Union  which  was  all 
victory  and  no  concession,  —  after  a  defeat  of  the  Rebels,  which 
was  all  defeat  and  no  surrender,  —  we  arc  asked  to  listen  to  the 
astonishing  proposition  that  this  war  had  no  results  beyond  the 
mere  fact  of  victory.  A  great  political  party  is  asking  the  suf- 
frages of  the  people  in  support  of  the  unutterably  atrocious 
assertion   that  these   red-handed   and  vanquished  traitors  have 


228  NATIONAL  POLITICS, 

lost  no  rights  or  privileges  by  their  defeat,  and  the  victors  have 
acquired  no  rights  over  traitors  and  treason  as  the  fruit  of  their 
victory !  These  antediluvian  philosophers  seem  to  have  turned 
down  a  leaf  in  the  record  of  the  life  of  the  republic  in  April, 
1861,  and  they  propose  now,  in  the  year  of  grace  1866,  to  begin 
again  where  they  ceased  reading  five  years  ago,  as  if  there  had 
been  no  crime,  no  treason,  no  deluge  of  blood,  no  overthrow  of 
rebellion,  no  triumph  of  liberty.  Fellow-citizens,  who  are  the 
men  that  advocate  this  monstrous  doctrine?  I  cannot  answer 
this  question  without  discussing  freely  the  public  conduct  of 
the  President  of  the  United  States. 

For  the  first  eight  months  after  the  collapse  of  the  Rebellion, 
I  did  not  hear  that  any  man  making  the  smallest  claim  to  loy 
alty  presumed  to  deny  the  right  of  the  government  to  impose 
conditions  upon  the  States  and  people  lately  in  rebellion.  Cer- 
tainly the  President  did  not.  Both  in  his  executive  acts  and  in 
repeated  declarations,  he  affirmed  again  and  again  the  right  of 
the  government  to  demand  security  for  the  future,  —  to  require 
the  performance  of  certain  acts  on  the  part  of  the  Rebel  States 
as  preliminary  to  restoration. 

You  will  remember,  fellow-citizens,  that  when  I  addressed 
you  in  the  spring  of  1865,  shortly  after  the  assassination  of 
President  Lincoln,  I  expressed  the  belief  that  Andrew  Johnson 
would  treat  traitors  with  the  severity  their  crimes  demanded. 
There  was  a  general  apprehension  that  he  might  be  too  severe, 
and  demand  conditions  so  hard  as  to  make  the  restoration  of 
the  Rebel  States  a  work  of  great  difficulty.  It  was  said  that  he 
knew  from  personal  experience  what  the  Rebellion  was,  and 
what  treatment  treason  deserved.  The  American  people  re- 
membered his  repeated  declarations  on  this  whole  subject. 
They  remembered  his  bold  speech  at  Nashville,  on  the  9th  of 
June,  1864,  when  he  accepted  the  nomination  for  the  Vice- 
Presidency,  and  used  the  following  language :  — 

"Why  all  this  carnage  and  devastation?  It  was  that  treason  might  be 
put  down  and  traitors  punished.  Therefore,  I  say  that  traitors  should 
take  a  back  seat  in  the  work  of  restoration.  If  there  be  but  five  thousand 
men  in  Tennessee  loyal  to  the  Constitution,  loyal  to  freedom,  loyal  to 
justice,  these  true  and  faithful  men  should  control  the  work  of  reorganiza- 
tion and  reformation  absolutely.  I  say  that  the  traitor  has  ceased  to  be 
a  citizen,  and  in  joining  the  Rebellion  has  become  a  public  enemy.  He 
forfeited  his  right  to  vote  with  loyal  men  when  he  renounced  his  citizen- 


NATIONAL  POLITICS.  229 

ship  and  sought  to  destroy  our  government My  judgment  is  that 

he  should  be  subjected  to  a  severe  ordeal  before  he  is  restored  to  citi- 
zenship  Ah  !  these  Rebel  leaders  have  a  strong  personal  reason 

for  holding  out  to  save  their  necks  from  the  halter ;  and  these  leaders 
must  feel  the  power  of  the.  government.  Treason  must  be  made  odious, 
and  traitors  must  be  punished  and  impoverished.  Their  great  planta- 
tions must  be  seized  and  divided  into  small  farms,  and  sold  to  honest,  in- 
dustrious men.  The  day  for  protecting  the  lands  and  negroes  of  these 
authors  of  the  Rebellion  is  past."  ^ 

They  remembered  his  speeches  at  Washington  after  his  in- 
auguration, in  which  the  same  sentiments  were  repeated.  They 
remembered  that  in  his  address  to  Governor  Morton  and  the 
Indiana  delegation,  on  the  21st  of  April,  1865,  six  days  after 
the  pistol  of  Booth  made  him  President  of  the  United  States,  he 
said :  — 

"  It  is  not  promulgating  anything  that  I  have  not  heretofore  said,  to 
say  that  traitors  must  be  made  odious,  that  treason  must  be  made  odious, 
that  traitors  must  be  punished  and  impoverished.  They  must  not  only 
be  punished,  but  their  social  power  must  be  destroyed.  If  not,  they 
will  still  maintain  an  ascendency,  and  may  again  become  numerous  and 
powerful ;  for,  in  the  words  of  a  former  Senator  of  the  United  States, 
*  when  traitors  become  numerous  enough,  treason  becomes  respectable.* 
And  I  say  that,  after  making  treason  odious,  every  Union  man  and  the 
government  should  be  remunerated  out  of  the  pockets  of  those  who  have 
inflicted  this  great  suffering  upon  the  country Some  time  the  re- 
bellion may  go  on  increasing  in  numbers  till  the  State  machinery  is  over- 
turned, and  the  country  becomes  like  a  man  that  is  paralyzed  on  one 
side.  But  we  find  in  the  Constitution  a  great  panacea  provided.  It 
provides  that  the  United  States  (that  is,  the  great  integer)  shall  guarantee 
to  each  State  (the  integers  composing  the  whole)  in  this  Union  a  repub- 
lican form  of  government.  Yes,  if  rebellion  had  been  rampant,  and  set 
aside  the  machinery  of  a  State  for  a  time,  there  stands  the  great  law  to 
remove  the  paralysis,  and  revitalize  it,  and  put  it  on  its  feet  again."  ^ 

It  is  true,  however,  that  there  were  even  then  those  who  ex- 
pressed doubts  of  his  sincerity,  and  feared  he  would  betray  his 
trust.  When,  during  the  months  of  May,  June,  and  July,  1865, 
they  saw  him  appointing  Provisional  Governors  for  seven  of 
the  Rebel  States,  and  ordering  the  assembling  of  conventions 
to  form  new  constitutions  and  rebuild  their  State  governments, 
many  thought  he  should  have  called  upon  Congress  to  assemble 
and  perform  the  duty  enjoined   upon  it  in  the  Constitution  of 

*  McPhcrson's  History  of  Reconstruction,  pp.  46,  47,  note.        ^  ibid.,  pp.  45,  46. 


230  NATIONAL  POLITICS. 

guaranteeing  to  every  State  in  the  Union  a  republican  form  of 
government.  But  the  confidence  of  the  people  was  kept  alive 
by  his  repeated  declarations  to  the  Governors  and  conventions 
that  his  work  was  only  provisional,  and  must  all  be  submitted 
to  Congress  for  its  action. 

On  the  29th  of  May,  1865,  he  published  his  amnesty  procla- 
mation, and  on  the  same  day  appointed  William  W.  Holdcn 
Provisional  Governor  of  North  Carolina.  In  the  proclamation  of 
appointment  he  declared  that  whereas  "  the  Constitution  of  the 
United  States  declares  that  the  United  States  shall  guarantee  .to 
every  State  in  the  Union  a  republican  form  of  government,  .... 
and  whereas  the  Rcbellicn  has  in  its  rezwliiiionary  progress  de- 
prived the  people  of  the  State  of  North  Carolina  of  all  civil  govern- 
mcnty'  he  therefore  appointed  William  W.  Holden  Provisional 
Governor,  "  with  authority  to  exercise  within  the  limits  of  said 
State  all  the  powers  necessary  and  proper  to  enable  such  loyal 
people  of  North  Carolina  to  restore  said  State  to  its  constitu- 
tional relations  to  the  Federal  government,  and  to  present  such 
a  republican  form  of  State  government  as  will  entitle  the  State 
to  the  guaranty  of  the  United  States  therefor,  and  its  people  to 
protection  by  the  United  States."  ^  On  the  same  terms  seven 
other  Governors  were  appointed.  On  the  12th  of  September, 
the  Secretary  of  State,  by  direction  of  the  President,  wrote  to 
Governor  Marvin,  of  Florida,  a  letter,  which  concluded  in  these 
words:  "It  must,  however,  be  distinctly  understood  that  the 
restoration  to  which  your  proclamation  refers  will  be  subject  to 
the  decision  of  Congress."  ^ 

But  the  confidence  of  the  people  did  not  rest  solely  upon  the 
fact  that  the  President  held  that  all  his  work  was  provisional, 
and  must  be  referred  to  Congress  for  its  final  settlement.  Their 
confidence  was  still  further  strengthened  by  his  repeated  official 
declarations  that  guaranties  must  be  demanded  of  the  Rebel 
States  before  they  could  be  restored  to  their  practical  relations 
to  the  Union. 

On  the  28th  of  October,  the  Secretary  of  State  wrote  to  the 
Provisional  Governor  of  Georgia  as  follows :  **  The  President 
of  the  United  States  cannot  recognize  the  people  of  any  State  as 
having  resumed  the  relations  of  loyalty  to  the  Union  that  ad- 
mits as  legal,  obligations  contracted  or  debts  created  in  their 
name  to  promote  the  war  of  the  Rebellion."  ^ 

1  McPherson's  History  of  Reconstruction,  p.  11.  a  Ibid.,  p.  25. 

8  Ibid.,  p.  21. 


NATIONAL  FOLITICS.  231 

On  the  1st  of  November,  he  wrote  to  the  Provisional  Gov- 
ernor of  Florida  the  following :  "  Your  letter  of  October  7  was 
received  and  submitted  to  the  President.  He  is  gratified  with  the 
favorable  progress  toward  reorganization  in  Florida,  and  directs 
me  to  say  that  he  regards  the  ratification  by  the  legislature  of 
the  Congressional  Amendment  [Thirteenth]  of  the  Constitution 
of  the  United  States  as  indispensable  to  a  successful  restora- 
tion of  the  true  legal  relations  between  Florida  and  the  other 
States,  and  equally  indispensable  to  the  return  of  peace  and 
harmony  throughout  the  republic."  ^ 

On  the  6th  of  November  he  wrote  to  the  Provisional  Gover- 
nor of  South  Carolina  these  words :  **  Your  despatch  to  the  Pres- 
ident, of  November  4,  has  been  received.  He  is  not  entirely  sat- 
isfied with  the  explanations  it  contains.  He  deems  necessary  the 
passage  of  adequate  ordinances  declaring  that  all  insurrectionary 
proceedings  in  the  State  were  unlawful  and  void  ab  initio^  ^ 

In  these  utterances  the  President  had  plainly  demanded  at 
least  three  conditions  indispensable  to  restoration :  — 

1st.  That  the  Rebel  States  should  declare  their  ordinances  of 
secession  void  ab  initio, 

2d.  That  they  should  ratify  the  Constitutional  Amendment 
abolishing  slavery. 

3d.  That  they  should  repudiate  the  Rebel  debt,  and  that  their 
whole  conduct  in  the  premises  should  be  referred  to  Congress 
for  its  action. 

But  during  the  months  of  autumn  there  were  rumors  in  the 
air  which  troubled  the  peace  of  patriotic  citizens.  It  was  whis- 
pered that  the  President  was  going  over  to  our  political  enemies. 
It  was  observed  that  the  tone  of  the  Democratic  and  Rebel 
press  had  wonderfully  changed  toward  him.  P>om  the  begin- 
ning of  the  war  till  the  summer  of  1865,  Southern  traitors  and 
Northern  Democrats  had  vied  with  each  other  in  their  denun- 
ciation of  his  public  acts,  —  of  his  political  and  private  charac- 
ter. The  Rebels  had  all  along  denounced  him  as  a  renegade,  a 
traitor  to  his  country,  a  low-born  boor ;  while  Northern  Demo- 
cratic journals,  like  the  New  York  World,  had  denounced  him 
as  a  turncoat,  a  tyrant,  a  boorish  tailor,  a  drunken  brute,  less 
respectable  than  Nero's  horse.  But  as  the  fall  elections  of  1865 
approached,  they  began  to  speak  of  him  as  an  old-fashioned 
Democrat  who  had  not  forgotten  the  lessons  of  his  youth,  and 

1  McPhcrson's  History  of  Reconstruction,  p.  25.  ^  Ibid.,  p.  23. 


232  NATIONAL  POLITICS. 

who  would  yet  turn  his  back  upon  the  Union  party,  and  return 
to  the  embrace  of  his  former  friends.  The  people  were  alarmed 
at  these  manifestations,  but  were  somewhat  reassured  by  the 
declarations  of  the  President  made  to  Major  George  L.  Stearns 
on  the  3d  of  October,  when  he  said :  — 

"  The  power  of  those  persons  who  made  the  attempt  [at  rebellion] 
has  been  crushed,  and  now  we  want  to  reconstruct  the  State  govern- 
ments and  have  the  power  to  do  it.  The. State  institutions  are  prostrated, 
laid  out  on  the  ground,  and  they  must  be  taken  up  and  adapted  to  the 

progress  of  events We  must  not  be  in  too  much  of  a  hurry.     It 

is  better  to  let  them  reconstruct  themselves  than  to  force  them  to  it; 
for  if  they  go  wrong  the  power  is  in  our  hands,  and  we  can  check  them 

in  any  stage  tp  the  end,  and  oblige  them  to  correct  their  errors 

In  Tennessee  I  should  try  to  introduce  negro  suffrage  gradually ;  first, 
those  who  have  served  in  the  army,  those  who  could  read  and  write,  and 
perhaps  a  property  qualification  for  others,  say  $200  or  I250."  ^ 

When  Congress  met,  in  December  last,  there  was  great  anx- 
iety and  no  little  alarm.  From  the  first  hour  of  the  session,  the 
little  junto  of  Rebel  sympathizers  known  as  the  Democratic 
party  in  Congress  became  the  eulogists  and  defenders  of  the 
President.  Their  denunciations  of  the  Union  party  echoed  fa- 
miliarly as  of  old  through  the  halls  of  the  Capitol ;  but  their 
censures  were  turned  to  praises,  their  curses  to  blessings,  when 
they  spoke  of  the  President  elected  by  the  Union  party. 

But  even  then  we  did  not  lose  all  our  faith  in  Andrew  Johnson. 
Mis  annual  message,  though  carefully  worded,  reiterated  many  of 
his  former  declarations,  and  the  most  radical  men  in  Congress 
thanked  him,  and  took  new  courage.    In  that  message  he  said :  — 

"  It  is  not  too  much  to  ask,  in  the  name  of  the  whole  people,  that  on 
the  one  side  the  pkm  of  restoration  shall  proceed  in  conformity  with  a 
willingness  to  cast  the  disorders  of  the  past  into  oblivion  ;  and  that,  on 
the  other,  the  evidence  of  sincerity  in  the  future  maintenance  of  the 
Union  shall  be  put  beyond  any  doubt  by  the  ratification  of  the  proposed 
amendment  to  the  Constitution,  which  provides  for  the  abolition  of  slav- 
ery forever  within  the  limits  of  our  country.  So  long  as  the  adoption  of 
this  amendment  is  delayed,  so  long  will  doubt  and  jealousy  and  uncer- 
tainty prevail Indeed,  it  is  not  too  much  to  ask  of  the  States  which 

are  now  resuming  their  places  in  the  family  of  the  Union  to  give  this 
pledge  of  perpetual  loyalty  and  peace.  Until  it  is  done,  the  past,  how- 
ever much  we  may  desire  it,  will  not  be  forgotten.**  ^ 

1  McPherson's  History  of  Reconstruction,  p.  49.  ^  ibij.,  p.  65. 


NATIONAL   POLITICS.  233 

But  hardly  was  the  printer's  ink  dry  on  the  pages  of  the 
message,  when  the  President  began  to  insist  on  the  immediate 
admission  of  representatives  from  the  Rebel  States.  In  this 
demand  he  was  clamorously  seconded  by  the  Democrats  in  Con- 
gress, by  every  Democratic  orator  and  editor  in  the  North,  and 
by  every  Rebel  of  the  South.  Let  it  be  remembered  that  the 
demand  was  made  for  months  before  even  Andrew  Johnson 
claimed  that  the  Rebellion  was  legally  ended.  It  was  not  until 
the  2d  of  April,  1866,  that  he  declared  by  proclamation  that 
the  Rebellion  had  ceased  in  ten  of  the  States ;  and  even  then 
he  did  not  consider  it  ended  in  Texas.  It  was  not  until  the 
meeting  of  the  Philadelphia  Convention,  two  weeks  ago,  that 
he  declared  the  Rebellion  suppressed  in  that  State. 

Who  were  those  representatives  for  whom  admittance  into 
Congress  was  demanded  ?  Of  the  eighty- seven  elected  from 
Rebel  States,  not  ten  ever  made  professions  of  loyalty.  Fifteen 
had  been  generals  or  colonels  in  the  Rebel  army,  or  members  of 
the  Rebel  Congress,  or  of  Secession  conventions. 

The  President  did  not  long  leave  us  in  doubt.  In  his  address 
to  a  Rebel  delegation  from  Virginia,  on  the  loth  of  February, 
1866,  he  intimated  his  purpose  of  uniting  with  them,  and  with 
them  sweeping  round  the  circle  of  the  Union,  and  putting  down 
certain  Radicals,  whose  policy  he  denounced  as  "  a  rebellion  at 
the  other  end  of  the  line."  On  the  22d  of  February,  he  ad- 
dressed a  vast  concourse  of  Northern  Democrats,  of  Rebels  in 
Confederate  gray,  and  of  Secession  sympathizers  who  had  never 
been  out  of  their  holes  to  bask  in  the  sunshine  of  Presidential 
favor  since  Buchanan  betrayed  his  country,  all  of  whom  had 
assembled  to  thank  him  for  having  refused  to  give  military  pro- 
tection to  the  frecdmen  of  the  South.  His  utterances  in  that 
speech  are  only  too  well  remembered ;  I  shall  not  repeat  them 
here. 

Congress  then  undertook  to  extend  the  protection  of  the  civil 
courts  over  the  black  loyalists.  The  President  refused  his  sig- 
nature, but  your  loyal  representatives  were  able  to  pass  it  over 
his  head.  About  the  same  time  the  men  of  Connecticut  were 
struggling  to  elect,  as  their  Governor,  a  gallant  soldier  who  had 
fought  for  the  Union  with  distinguished  honor  from  the  begin- 
ning to  the  end  of  the  war.  He  was  opposed  by  the  whole 
strength  of  that  Rebel-loving  Democracy,  headed  by  Eaton  and 
Toucey,  whose  "  bad  eminence  "  is  a  part  of  the  history  of  the 


234  NATIONAL  POLITICS. 

Rebellion.  A  Democratic  member  of  the  Thirty-eighth  Con- 
gress was  their  candidate  for  Governor,  and  Andrew  Johnson 
threw  the  weight  of  his  great  patronage  into  the  scale,  recom- 
mended the  Federal  office-holders  to  work  for  English,  and 
sent  a  score  of  his  new-found  friends  from  Washington  to 
urge  the  people  to  defeat  the  Union  general.  Thanks  to  the 
loyalty  of  the  people  of  Connecticut,  they  were  able  to  defeat 
both  President  and  Democracy,  and  General  Hawley  was  made 
Governor  by  a  few  hundred  votes. 

The  true  men  of  the  Cabinet  still  remained  in  their  places,  in 
the  faint  hope  that  he  might  yet  come  back  to  the  party.  But 
Andrew  Johnson  was  content  with  no  half-way  measure.  He 
resolved  on  nothing  less  than  the  defeat  and  overthrow  of  the 
Union  party.  By  the  aid  of  a  Senator  and  an  ex-Governor  of 
Wisconsin,^  who  had  been  repudiated  by  the  loyal  men  of  the 
State,  a  call  was  issued  on  the  27th  of  June  for  a  general  con- 
vention of  those  who  would  indorse  the  President,  to  meet  in 
Philadelphia  on  the  i6th  of  August.  This  call  was  indorsed  by 
the  forty-five  Democratic  members  of  Congress,  including  such 
patriots  as  Garrett  Davis  of  Kentucky,  Ross  of  Illinois,  Rogers 
of  New  Jersey,  and  Finck  and  Le  Blond  of  Ohio.  When  the 
Cabinet  officers  were  asked  to  join  in  the  movement,  Dennison, 
Harlan,  and  Speed  responded  by  denouncing  the  convention, 
and  sending  in  their  resignations. 

The  convention  assembled  in  full  force,  and  under  rules  as 
rigid  and  with  order  and  harmony  as  perfect  as  ever  obtained 
under  the  discipline  of  the  Ohio  penitentiary,  it  has  given  us 
the  results  of  its  labors  in  a  decalogue  of  **  principles  "  and  an 
address  of  four  newspaper  columns,  which  must  now  be  re- 
garded as  the  latest  version  of  the  President's  Rebel  Democratic 
policy.  To  understand  the  policy  which  the  nation  is  now  in- 
vited to  adopt,  it  will  be  necessary  to  examine  somewhat  the 
parties  that  composed  and  the  purposes  which  inspired  the  Phil- 
adelphia Convention.     Three  classes  made  up  the  assemblage. 

First,  the  unwashed,  unanointed,  unforgiven,  unrepentant,  un- 
hung Rebels  of  the  South.  They  were  represented  by  such 
politicians  as  the  Rebel  Vice-President,  lately  called  from  the 
casements  of  Fort  Warren  by  his  admiring  constituents,  to  rep- 
resent them  in  the  Senate  of  the  United  States;  by  such  gallant 
generals  as  Dick  Taylor,  who,  when  his  brigade  had  captured  in 

1  J.  R.  Doolittle  and  A.  W.  RandaH. 


NATIONAL  POLITICS.  235 

battle  seven  Union  men  that  had  escaped  the  rebel  conscription 
in  Louisiana,  and  had  joined  a  Vermont  regiment  to  fight  for 
the  Union,  compelled  them  to  dig  their  own  graves,  and  then 
ordered  them  shot  in  his  presence ;  by  such  clergymen  as  the 
Rev.  Jesse  B.  Ferguson,  who,  years  ago  (possibly  in  antici- 
pation of  the  wants  of  his  brother  Champ,  lately  hanged  in 
Nashville  for  twenty  Union  murders)  proclaimed  a  post  7uoricm 
gospel,  glad  tidings  for  the  dead  and  damned, — who  gave  the 
weight  of  his  ministerial  character  to  aid  in  the  destruction  of 
the  Union,  and  now  speaks  touchingly  of  the  "  lost  cause  " ;  and 
last,  but  not  least,  by  Governor  Orr,  who  taught  the  blessed  les- 
son that,  if  South  Carolina  would  join  the  arm-in-arm  embrace 
of  Massachusetts,  she  must  first  slaughter  twenty-five  thousand 
sons  of  the  Bay  State.  This  first  class  formed  the  great,  dumb, 
heroic  element  of  the  convention. 

The  second  class  was  the  dishonored,  depraved,  defeated 
remnant  of  Northern  Democracy.  The  divine  Fernando,  the 
sainted  martyr  Vallandigham,  the  meek-eyed  Ryndcrs,  and  the 
patriotic  H.  Clay  Dean  were  there,  and  their  past  distinguished 
services  in  the  cause  of  their  country  were  equalled  only  by  the 
self-sacrificing  spirit  by  which  they  preserved  the  harmony  of 
the  convention.  The  part  played  by  the  Democracy  in  the  con- 
vention was  a  humble  one.  They  could  not  have  looked  upon 
their  brother  delegates  from  the  South  without  feelings  of  rev- 
erence and  admiration  for  the  heroism  wliich  led  them  to  do 
battle  in  the  field  to  sustain  a  cause  for  which  they  themselves 
had  dared  to  do  no  more  than  speak  and  vote  and  pray. 

Third,  last  and  least,  were  all  the  apostate  Union  men  who 
hunger  and  thirst  after  office  and  the  spoils  thereof,  —  who 
greedily  gather  up  the  crumbs  that  fall  from  the  political 
table.  This  class  was  not  the  Lazarus  of  the  convention,  for 
though  the  Democracy  did  not  hesitate  to  lick  their  sores 
and  make  them  the  chief  managers,  they  still  lacked  the  piety 
of  the  Jew.  They  are  paupers,  disinherited  by  the  party  of 
freedom,  and  are  now  begging  their  political  bread  from  door 
to  door.  There  were  men  whose  presence  in  that  convention 
was  a  painful  surprise  to  their  Union  friends;  men  of  whom 
higher  and  nobler  things  were  expected ;  men  who  had  ser\ed 
with  honor  in  the  army  of  the  Union.  Let  us  hope  that,  when 
they  see  the  company  into  which  they  have  fallen,  they  will  re- 
member the  holy  cause  for  which  they  have  fought,  and  retrace 


236  NATIONAL  POLITICS. 

their  unfortunate  steps.  Such  was  the  convention  and  such  the 
men  by  whom  and  through  whom  the  President  proposes  to 
settle  the  great  questions  now  pending  before  the  nation. 

And  now  let  us  examine  its  doctrines.  The  leading  thought 
which  inspired  all  the  declarations  of  the  convention  was  uttered 
by  Alexander  H.  Stephens,  late  Vice-President  of  the  Confeder- 
acy, and  by  Thomas  Ewing,  Vice-President  of  the  Philadelphia 
Convention.  Mr.  Stephens  said,  in  his  evidence  before  a  commit- 
tee of  Congress,  given  three  months  ago :  "  Georgia  will  accept 
no  conditions  of  restoration.  She  claims  to  come  back  with  her 
privilege  of  representation  unimpaired."  While  the  Philadelphia 
Convention  was  assembling,  Mr.  Ewing  said :  **  Even  in  the  heat 
and  violence  of  the  Rebellion,  the  States  in  which  Rebel  violence 
most  prevailed  were  each  and  all  of  them,  as  States,  entitled  to 
their  representation  in  the  two  Houses  of  Congress."  This,  I 
say,  was  the  central  thought  in  the  convention,  and  even  the 
accomplished  acrobat  of  the  New  York  Times,  though  he  waded 
knee-deep  in  words  through  his  four-column  address,  was  not 
able  to  sink  it  out  of  sight.  In  their  **  declaration  of  principles" 
it  is  expressly  affirmed  that  the  war  "  left  the  rights  and  author- 
ity of  the  States  free  and  unimpaired ;  that  neither  Congress  nor 
the  President  has  any  power  to  question  their  right  to  represen- 
tation." Planting  themselves  on  this  doctrine,  they  ask  that  the 
people  elect  to  the  Fortieth  Congress  only  those  who  acknowl- 
edge the  unqualified  right  of  the  Rebel  States  to  immediate 
representation.  They  also  ask  the  President  to  use  his  vast 
official  patronage  to  secure  this  result. 

F'reighted  with  its  proceedings,  a  committee  of  this  mongrel 
convention  repaired  to  Washington,  and  in  the  east  room  of 
the  White  House  enacted  the  farce  of  delivering  them  to  the 
President.  He  indorsed  the  doctrines  of  the  convention,  and 
then  gave  utterance  to  a  sentiment  so  reckless  and  revolutionary 
as  to  create  the  profoundest  alarm  among  loyal  men.  The 
Democratic  and  Rebel  journals  have  for  months  been  denoun- 
cing Congress  as  an  illegal  body,  a  revolutionary  rump,  and  have 
demanded  their  dispersion  by  force.  Alexander  H.  Stephens 
expressed  the  opinion  that  the  acts  of  this  Congress  are  illegal, 
because  the  Rebel  States  are  not  represented.  Garrett  Davis 
expressed  the  same  opinion  in  the  Senate,  and  appealed  to  the 
President  to  disperse  it  and  recognize  the  Rebel  and  Democratic 
members  as  the  Concrress  of  the  United  States.      But  all  these 


NATIONAL  POLITICS.  237 

suggestions  were  regarded  as  the  insane  ravings  of  men  blinded 
by  partisan  fury.  But  here,  in  a  speech  made  by  appointment 
to  a  committee  whose  plans  and  purposes  he  noj  only  knew, 
but  had  helped  to  form,  Andrew  Johnson  used  this  language : 
"We  have  seen  hanging  upon  the  verge  of  the  government,  as 
it  were,  a  body  called,  or  which  assumes  to  be,  the  Congress  of 
the  United  States,  while  in  fact  it  is  a  Congress  of  only  a  part 
of  the  States."  Who  is  the  "government"  upon  the  "verge" 
of  which  the  President  declares  the  Congress  of  the  United 
States  "  hangs"  as  an  unlawful  appendage?  We  had  supposed 
that  the  government  of  the  United  States  consisted  of  the  su- 
preme power  of  the  people,  vested  in  the  legislative,  judicial, 
and  executive  departments ;  but  he  speaks  of  the  Thirty-ninth 
Congress  as  a  body  "  called  "  or  "  assumed  to  be  the  Congress 
of  the  United  States."  If  these  words  have  any  meaning,  they 
mean  that  the  President  regards  your  Congress  as  an  unlawful 
assembly;  and  if  he  has  the  courage  to  act  up  to  his  convictions, 
he  will  take  the  advice  of  his  Rebel  and  Democratic  friends  and 
disperse  it  when  it  again  convenes,  as  he  and  his  Southern  allies 
dissolved  the  New  Orleans  convention  in  blood.  It  is  possible 
that  we  are  to  have  a  rebellion,  not  "  on  the  other  end  of  the 
line,"  but  in  the  centre,  —  in  the  sacred  citadel  of  the  nation. 
It  is  possible  that  he  intends  to  fulfil  his  promise  to  make 
treason  "  odious,"  by  making  himself  the  most  conspicuous  ex- 
ample of  public  treachery.  Whatever  be  the  President's  mean- 
ing, the  loyal  people  will  not  fail  to  remind  him  that  he  is  not 
the  controller  of  Congress,  but  the  executor  of  the  laws,  and 
the  same  people  who  elevated  him  to  his  high  place  will,  if 
justice  and  liberty  require  it,  let  fall  on  him  a  bolt  of  condem- 
nation which  will  settle  forever  the  question  that  Presidents  are 
the  servants,  not  the  masters,  of  the  American  people. 

And  now  let  me  examine  the  doctrine  of  the  Philadelphia 
Convention,  that  "  the  war  left  the  rights  and  authority  of  the 
Rebel  States  unimpaired."  I  meet  this  proposition  with  the 
undeniable  fact,  that,  when  the  Confederacy  fell,  the  authority 
of  the  Rebel  States  was  not  only  "  impaired,"  but  utterly  over- 
thrown. I  answer  in  the  words  of  Andrew  Johnson,  "The  Re- 
bellion deprived  North  Carolina  of  all  civil  government " ;  and 
call  attention  to  the  fact,  that  he  had  appointed  a  provisional 
government  "  to  aid  in  rebuilding  a  State  government  and  re- 
storing North  Carolina  to  her  constitutional   relations  to  the 


238  NATIONAL  POLITICS. 

Union."  I  deny  the  assertion  that  representation  is  an  inalien- 
able right  I  repudiate  the  atrocious  doctrine  that  Rebels  in 
arms  are  entitled  to  a  voice  in  the  government  which  they  are 
fighting  at  the  same  time  to  destroy.  While  the  Rebel  army 
was  in  winter  quarters  recruiting  for  the  next  campaign,  Lee 
and  Johnston,  Breckinridge  and  Bragg,  Taylor  and  Forrest, 
might  have  taken  seats  in  Congress,  or  if  not  these,  then  others 
who  had  never  been  brave  enough  to  take  such  public  part  in 
the  Rebellion  as  to  prevent  their  taking  the  test  oath;  and 
then  this  might  have  added  enough  votes  to  the  Democratic 
strength  in  the  Thirty-eighth  Congress  to  control  the  action  of 
that  body,  and  assure  the  success  of  the  Rebellion. 

I  do  not  adopt  the  doctrine  that  the  Rebel  States  were  out 
of  the*  Union;  but  I  hold,  in  the  language  of  Abraham  Lincoln, 
that  "  by  the  Rebellion  they  destroyed  their  practical  relations 
to  the  Union."  They  did  not  relieve  themselves  from  their  ob- 
ligations to  the  Union,  but  by  treason  and  war  they  forfeited 
their  rights  to  life  and  property.  It  was  for  the  victorious 
government  to  say  what  mercy  should  be  extended,  what  rights 
should  be  restored. 

It  is  the  duty  of  the  Congress  of  the  United  States,  enjoined 
by  the  Constitution,  "  to  guarantee  to  every  State  in  this  Union 
a  republican  form  of  government."  For  the  correctness  of  this 
position,  I  appeal  to  the  solemn  decision  of  the  Supreme  Court 
in  the  case  of  the  Dorr  rebellion,  in  1842. 

"  Under  this  article  of  the  Constitution,  it  rests  with  Congress  to  de- 
cide what  government  is  the  established  one  in  a  State.  For  as  the 
United  States  guarantee  to  each  State  a  republican  government,  Congress 
must  necessarily  decide  what  government  is  established  in  the  State  be- 
fore it  can  determine  whether  it  is  republican  or  not.  And  when  the 
Senators  and  Representatives  of  a  State  are  admitted  into  the  councils 
of  the  Union,  the  authority  of  the  government  under  which  they  are 
appointed,  as  well  as  its  republican  character,  is  recognized  by  the  proper 
constitutional  authority.  And  its  decision  is  binding  on  every  other  de- 
partment of  the  government Unquestionably,  a  military  govern- 
ment, cstv'il)lishod  as  the  permanent  government  of  the  State,  would  not 
be  a  rei;)ublican  government,  and  it  would  be  the  duty  of  Congress  to 
overthrow  it."  ^ 

I  answer  the  doctrine  of  the  Philadelphia  Convention  by  the 
fact  that  the  President  demanded  three  preliminary  conditions 

1  7  Howard,  42,  45. 


NATIONAL  POLITICS,  239 

as  indispensable  to  his  recognition  of  the  Rebel  States  to  repre- 
sentation in  Congress.     He  demanded,  — 

1st.  That  these  States  should  declare  all  their  acts  of  Seces- 
sion void  from  the  beginning. 

2d.  That  they  should  ratify  the  Constitutional  Amendment 
abolishing  slavery. 

3d.  That  they  should  repudiate  all  their  debts  contracted  to 
support  the  Rebellion. 

The  Philadelphia  Convention  says  that  representation  is  an 
inalienable  right,  which  the  war  did  not  impair.  If  this  be  true, 
the  President  is  condemned  for  imposing  conditions. 

But  it  may  be  claimed  that  the  three  conditions  have  been 

complied  with,  that  State  governments  have  been  established  in 

all  the  eleven  States,  and  that  Congress  should  have  recognized 

the  fact     I  answer  that,  with  the  single  exception  of  Tennessee, 

not  one  of  the  constitutions  of  these  States  has  been  ratified 

by  the  people  of  the  States,  or  even  submitted  to  them.     Can 

^at  be  called  a  republican  government  of  a  State  which  was 

framed  by  a  convention  of  pardoned  Rebels  under  the  dicta- 

^^on  of  a  military  governor  and  the  commander-in-chief  of  the 

^'"rnies  of  the  United  States?     But  even  if  these    governments 

^*'ore  lawful  and  republican  in  every  respect,  have  the  condi- 

^'^^ns  which  the  President  demanded  been  so  secured  as  to  be- 

c^rne  *' irreversible  guaranties"? 

It  is  said  that  the   legislatures  have   repudiated  the   Rebel 

"^VdIs.      May  they  not,  a  year  hence,  repeal  the  acts  of  repu- 

^io^tion?      It  is  said  that  the  Civil   Rights   Bill  is  now  a  law, 

^^d  will  give  the  freedmen  adequate  protection.     Who  docs  not 

^How  that  the  President  who  vetoed,  and  his  Democratic  allies 

^^'bo  voted  against  the  bill,  will  hasten  to  repeal  it  if  they  ever 

regain  the  power  in  Congress?     We  will  accept  no  securities 

^vhich  are  based  solely  on  the  promises  of  perjured  traitors.    We 

will  accept  as  the  basis  of  our  future  peace   no  mere  acts  or 

resolves   of   Rebel   convocations    or   Rebel    legislatures.      The 

guaranties  which  the    loyal    millions  of  the   republic  demand 

as  conditions  of  restoration    must  be  lifted    above  the   reach 

of  traitors   and    Rebel    States,    and    imbedded    forever   in    the 

imperishable    bulwarks   of  the    Constitution ;     therefore,    their 

loyal    representatives   in    the  Thirty-ninth   Congress   proposed 

an  amendment  to  the  Constitution,  which,   adopted  by  three 

fourths  of  the  States,  will  make  liberty  and  union  secure  for 


240  '     NATIONAL  POLITICS, 

the  future.  They  have  proposed  that  it  shall  be  a  part  of  the 
Constitution,  — 

1st.  That  no  State  shall  deny  any  person  within  its  jurisdic- 
tion the  equal  protection  of  the  laws. 

2d.  That  the  representation  of  any  State  in  Congress  shall 
be  determined  by  the  ratio  which  the  male  inhabitants  of  sucli 
State,  being  twenty-one  years  of  age  and  citizens  of  the  United 
States,  who  are  entitled  by  the  laws  thereof  to  vote,  bears  to 
the  whole  number  of  such  citizens  in  the  State.  So  that  just  in 
proportion  as  the  right  of  suffrage  is  extended  to  the  male  citi- 
zens twenty-one  years  of  age  and  citizens  of  the  United  States, 
or  is  restricted,  shall  the  representation  be  increased  or  dimin- 
ished. 

3d.  That  no  person  shall  hold  any  office,  civil  or  military, 
under  the  United  States,  or  under  any  State,  who,  having  pre- 
viously taken  an  oath  as  an  officer  of  the  United  States,  or  a 
legislative,  executive,  or  judicial  officer  of  a  State,  to  support 
the  Constitution  of  the  United  States,  shall  have  engaged  in 
insurrection  or  rebellion  against  the  same,  or  given  aid  or  com- 
fort to  the  enemies  thereof;  but  Congress  may,  by  a  vote  of 
two  thirds  of  each  House,  remove  such  disability. 

4th.  The  public  debt  of  the  United  States  shall  never  be  re- 
pudiated, and  the  Rebel  debt  shall  never  be  paid. 

5th.  Congress  shall  have  power  to  enforce  these  provisions 
by  appropriate  legislation. 

These  propositions  appeal  to  the  common  and  moral  sense 
of  the  nation,  as  every  way  worthy  to  become  a  part  of  our  fun- 
damental law.  They  are  conditions  with  which  any  State  lately 
in  rebellion  can  comply  without  humiliation  or  disgrace;  which 
no  State,  if  sincere  in  its  professions  of  returning  loyalty,  would 
hesitate  to  adopt.  These  conditions  were  cheerfully  adopted  b)* 
the  loyal  men  of  Tennessee,  though  the  President,  seconded  by 
the  Rebels  in  that  State,  made  every  possible  eftbrt  to  prevent 
it,  and  Congress  immediately  declared  that  State  entitled  to 
representation,  and  the  members  elect  were  admitted  to  their 
seats.  These  conditions  embraced  in  the  Constitutional  Amend- 
ment, and  proposed  to  the  late  Rebel  States,  form  the  Congres- 
sional policy.  Whenever  any  other  of  the  sinful  eleven  complies 
with  the  same  conditions,  it  can  come  in  as  did  Tennessee. 

And  now,  fellow-citizens,  the  two  policies  are  before  you.  It 
is  for  you  to  determine  which  shall  be  adopted  as  the  basis  of 


NATIONAL  POLITICS.  241 

restoration  and  peace.  In  the  settlement  of  these  great  issues, 
you  must  vote  with  one  of  two  parties,  for  there  can  be  no  third 
party.  The  President  has  joined  the  Democratic  party,  and 
that  has  joined  with  the  Rebels  of  the  South.  The  great  Union 
party  and  its  glorious  army  kept  the  two  parties  apart  for  four 
years  and  a  half;  we  fired  bullets  to  the  front  and  ballots  to  the 
rear;  we  conquered  them  both  in  the  field  and  at  the  polls; 
but  now  that  our  army  is  withdrawn,  the  two  wings  are  reunited. 
They  joined  in  Philadelphia,  and  Andrew  Johnson  is  their  leader. 
The  great  Union  party  now  stands  face  to  face  with  the  motley 
crew.    With  which  will  you  cast  in  your  lot,  fellow-citizens? 

Remember  the  noble  history  of  the  Union  party.  No  party 
ever  had  so  proud  a  record.  The  Union  party  saved  the  repub- 
lic from  the  most  powerful  and  bloody  conspiracy  ever  formed 
since  Satan  fell  from  heaven.  It  broke  the  shackles  from  the 
limbs  of  four  million  slaves,  and  redeemed  the  fair  fame  of  the 
nation.  It  carried  its  arms  to  victory  on  a  thousand  battle- 
fields. It  scattered  every  army  that  bore  a  Rebel  banner.  It 
has  enrolled  among  its  members  the  old  Republican  party  of 
freedom;  all  the  loyal  Democrats  who  followed  pouglas,  or 
loved  their  country  more  than  their  party ;  all  the  soldiers  who 
suflfered  and  conquered.  The  tvvo  hundred  and  fifty  thousand 
heroes  who  fell  on  the  field  of  honor  were  Union  men,  and, 
could  they  rise  from  their  bloody  graves  to-day,  would  vote 
with  the  Union  party. 

The  Democratic  party  is  composed  of  all  who  conspired  to 
destroy  the  republic,  and  of  all  those  who  fought  to  make 
treason  triumphant.  It  broke  ten  thousand  oaths,  and  to  its 
perjury  added  murder,  starvation,  and  assassination.  It  de- 
clared through  its  mouthpieces  in  Ohio,  in  1861,  that  if  the 
Union  men  of  Ohio  should  ever  attempt  to  enter  a  South- 
ern State  to  suppress  the  Rebellion  by  arms,  they  must  first 
pass  over  the  dead  bodies  of  two  hundred  thousand  Ohio 
Democrats.  In  the  mid-fury  of  the  struggle  it  declared  the 
war  a  failure,  and  demanded  a  cessation  of  hostilities.  In  the 
Democratic  party  is  enrolled  every  man  who  led  a  Rebel  army 
or  voluntarily  carried  a  Rebel  musket ;  every  man  who  resisted 
the  draft,  who  called  the  Union  soldiers  **  Lincoln's  hirelings," 
"  negro  worshippers,"  or  any  other  vile  name.  Booth,  Wirz, 
Harold,  and  Payne  were  Democrats.  Every  Rebel  guerilla  and 
jay  hawker,  every  man  who  ran  to  Canada  to  avoid  the  draft, 

VOL.  L  16 


242  NATIONAL  POLITICS. 

eveiy  bounty-jumper,  every  deserter,  every  cowardly  sneak  that 
ran  from  danger  and  disgraced  his  flag,  every  man  who  loves 
slavery  and  hates  liberty,  every  man  who  helped  massacre  loyal 
negroes  at  Fort  Pillow,  or  loyal  whites  at  New  Orleans,  every 
Knight  of  the  Golden  Circle,  every  incendiary  who  helped  burn 
Northern  steamboats  and  Northern  hotels,  and  every  villain,  of 
whatever  name  or  crime,  who  loves  power  more  than  justice, 
slavery  more  than  freedom,  is  a  Democrat  and  an  indorser  of 
Andrew  Johnson. 

Fellow-citizens,  I  cannot  doubt  the  issue  of  such  a  contest. 
I  have  boundless  faith  in  the  lo3ral  people,  and  I  beseech  you, 
by  all  the  proud  achievements  of  the  past  five  years,  by  the 
immortal  memories  of  the  heroic  dead,  by  the  love  you  bore  to 
the  starved  and  slaughtered  thousands  who  perished  for  their 
country  and  are  sleeping  in  unknown  graves,  by  all  the  high 
and  holy  considerations  of  loyalty,  justice,  and  truth,  to  pause 
not  in  the  work  you  have  begun  till  the  Union,  crowned  with 
victory  and  established  by  justice,  shall  enter  upon  its  high 
career  of  freedom  and  peace. 


RECONSTRUCTION. 

REMARKS  MADE  IN  THE  HOUSE  OF  REPRESENTATIVES  ON 

VARIOUS  OCCASIONS. 


The  scheme  of  Reconstruction  proposed  by  the  joint  committee  of  the 
two  houses  consisted  of  the  Fourteenth  Amendment,  and  two  bills,  enti- 
tled, "  A  Bill  to  provide  for  restoring  the  States  lately  in  Insurrection  to 
their  full  Political  Rights,"  and  "  A  Bill  declaring  certain  Persons  ineli- 
gible to  Office  under  the  Government  of  the  United  States."  The  first 
of  these  bills  proposed  that  whenever  the  Fourteenth  Amendment  should 
become  part  of  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States,  and  any  State  lately 
in  insurrection  should  have  ratified  the  same,  and  should  have  modified 
its  Constitution  and  laws  in  conformity  therewith,  the  Senators  and  Rep- 
resentatives from  such  State,  if  found  duly  elected  and  qualified,  might 
after  having  taken  the  required  oaths  of  office,  be  admitted  into  Congress 
as  such.  The  other  bill  requires  no  analysis.  Neither  one  of  these  bills 
was  voted  upon.  Accordingly,  the  Fourteenth  Amendment  alone  was  the 
Congressional  plan  of  reconstruction,  in  1866  ;  and,  as  Mr.  Garfield  states 
in  several  of  his  speeches,  the  State  political  campaigns  of  that  year  were 
conducted  by  the  Republicans  upon  that  platform. 

In  the  mean  time  the  Amendment  had  gone  to  the  States  for  their 
action.  When  Congress  met  in  December,  1866,  this  was  the  view  pre- 
sented :  all  of  the  Rebel  States  but  Tennessee  had  rejected  the  Amend- 
ment ;  Delaware,  Maryland,  and  Kentucky  had  likewise  rejected  it ; 
twenty-one  States  had  ratified  it,  and  three  had  taken  no  action.  The 
States  lately  in  rebellion  took  their  action,  as  Mr.  Garfield  says  more  than 
once,  under  the  lead  of  President  Johnson,  and  by  the  consent  of  the 
Democratic  party.  More  than  a  year  before,  the  States  had  been  "  re- 
constructed '*  according  to  the  ideas  of  the  President,  and  fully  organized 
and  equipped.  State  governments  were  now  in  existence  and  in  opera- 
tion in  all  those  States. 

ITie  next  step  that  the  Republicans  took  was  to  bring  forward  and 
carry  through  Congress  the  so-called  "  Military  Reconstruction  Meas- 
ures " ;  namely,  "  An  Act  to  provide  for  the  more  efficient  Government 
of  the  Rebel  States,"  March  2,  1867,  and  the  "Supplemental  Recon- 


244  RECONSTRUCTION. 

struction  Act,"  March  23,  1867.  These  acts,  both  of  which  were  carried 
over  the  President's  veto,  swept  away  the  so-called  State  governments  in 
the  ten  States,  divided  them  up  into  military  districts,  each  under  a  gen- 
eral of  the  United  States  army,  established  a  military  government,  and 
made  the  restoration  of  the  States  conditional  upon  the  ratification  of 
the  Fourteenth  Amendment,  and  the  acceptance,  so  far  as  the  ten  States 
were  concerned,  of  negro  suffrage.  These  acts,  together  with  the  various 
supplemental  acts  passed  from  time  to  time,  contain  the  plan  upon  which 
the  reconstruction  of  the  ten  States  was  finally  effected. 

The  Reconstruction  Act  proper,  March  2,  1867,  entitled,  "An  Act  to 
provide  for  the  more  efficient  Government  of  the  Rebel  States,"  having 
declared  in  its  preamble  that  "  no  legal  State  government,  or  adequate 
protection  for  life  or  property,  now  exists  in  the  Rebel  States  of  Virginia, 
North  Carolina,  South  Carolina,  Georgia,  Mississippi,  Alabama,  Louisi- 
ana, Florida,  Texas,  and  Arkansas,"  and  that  "  it  is  necessary  that  peace 
and  good  order  should  be  enforced  in  said  States  until  loyal  and  republi- 
can State  governments  can  be  legally  established,"  went  on  to  enact : 
(i.)  "That  said  Rebel  States  shall  be  divided  into  [five]  military  dis- 
tricts and  made  subject  to  the  military  authority  of  the  United  States." 
(2.)  That  the  President  shall  "assign  to  the  command  of  each  of  said 
districts  an  officer  of  the  army  not  below  the  rank  of  brigadier-gen- 
eral," to  be  supported  by  a  sufficient  military  force.  (3.)  That  it  shall 
be  the  duty  of  said  officer  "  to  protect  all  persons  in  their  rights  of  per- 
son and  property,  to  suppress  insurrection,  disorder,  and  violence,"  etc. 
(4.)  That  all  persons  put  under  mihtary  arrest  shall  "  be  tried  without 
unnecessary  delay,  and  no  cruel  or  unusual  punishment  be  inflicted." 
(5.)  "That  when  the  people  of  any  one  of  said  Rebel  States  shall  have 
formed  a  constitution  of  government  in  conformity  with  the  Constitution 
of  the  United  States  in  all  respects,  ....  and  when  such  constitution 
shall  be  ratified,  ....  and  when  such  constitution  shall  have  been  sub- 
mitted to  Congress  for  examination  and  approval,  and  Congress  shall 
have  approved  the  same,  and  when  said  State,  by  a  vote  of  its  legislature 
elected  under  said  constitution,  shall  have  adopted  the  amendment  to 
the  Constitution  of  the  United  States  proposed  by  the  Thirty-ninth  Con- 
gress, and  known  as  Article  Fourteen,  and  when  said  article  shall  have 
become  a  part  of  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States,  said  State  shall 
be  declared  entitled  to  representation  in  Congress,  and  Senators  and 
Representatives  shall  be  admitted  therefrom  on  their  taking  the  oaths  pre- 
scribed by  law,  and  then  and  thereafter  the  preceding  sections  of  this 
act  shall  be  inoperative  in  said  State."  (6.)  "  That  until  the  people  of 
said  Rebel  States  shall  be  by  law  admitted  to  representation  in  the  Con- 
gress of  the  United  States,  any  civil  governments  which  may  exist  therein 
shall  be  deemed  provisional  only."  Such  was  the  framework  of  this  law  : 
the  provisions  concerning  the  qualifications  of  delegates  and  of  electors 


RECONSTRUCTION.  245 

for  delegates  to  the  State  conventions  will  be  given  after  an  analysis  of  the 
act  of  March  27. 

The  Supplemental  Act  prescribed  the  minor  steps  to  be  taken  by  the 
States  in  carrying  out  the  plan,  (i.)  That  by  September  i,  1867,  the  gen- 
eral commanding  iti  any  district  shall  cause  the  qualified  voters  in  the 
States  composing  his  district  to  be  registered.  (2.)  That  in  each  State, 
after  thirty  days'  public  notice,  "an  election  shall  be  held  of  delegates  to 
a  convention  for  the  purpose  of  establishing  a  constitution  and  civil  gov- 
ernment for  such  State  loyal  to  the  Union."  (3.)  That  the  question  of 
holding  a  convention,  as  well  as  the  election  of  delegates,  shall  be  submit- 
ted to  the  registered  voters,  and  that  a  majority  of  those  voting 'shall  de- 
cide whether  a  convention  shall  be  called  or  not,  "  Provided^  that  such 
convention  shall  not  be  held  unless  a  majority  of  all  such  registered  voters 
shall  have  voted  on  the  question  of  holding  such  convention."  (4.)  That 
if  the  vote  be  in  the  affirmative,  the  commanding  general  shall  call  the 
delegates  together  in  convention  within  sixty  days  after  the  election,  and 
said  convention  shall  proceed  to  frame  a  constitution  in  harmony  with 
the  Reconstruction  Acts,  which  constitution  shall  be  submitted  to  the 
registered  voters  aforesaid  for  ratification.  (5.)  That  if  the  constitution 
shall  be  ratified  by  a  majority  of  those  voting,  "  at  least  one  half  of  all 
the  registered  voters  voting  upon  the  question  of  such  ratification,"  said 
constitution  shall  be  forwarded  to  the  President  of  the  United  States,  to 
be  by  him  laid  before  Congress.  (6.)  That  elections  to  carry  out  the 
act  of  March  2,  1867,  shall  be  by  ballot. 

These  were  the  cardinal  features  of  the  Supplemental  Act.  The  other 
features  need  not  be  mentioned,  further  than  to  say  that  the  whole  ma- 
chinery of  conducting  the  elections  —  boards  of  registry,  judges  of  elec- 
tions, canvassing,  and  returns  —  was  in  the  sole  control  of  the  general 
commanding.  There  was  considerable  further  supplementary  legislation 
on  these  subjects,  partly  to  make  plain  what  was  obscure,  partly  to  meet 
new  situations.  For  instance,  it  having  been  found  difficult  in  some 
cases  to  obtain  the  vote  required  on  the  question  of  calling  a  convention, 
it  was  provided,  March  11,  1868,  that  this  question  should  "be  decided 
by  a  majority  of  the  votes  actually  cast." 

Such  was  the  general  reconstruction  scheme  as  laid  down  in  the  Re- 
construction Acts.  It  is  necessary  now  to  go  back  and  inquire  how  these 
acts  constituted  the  State  conventions. 

First,  the  Fourteenth  Amendment,  together  with  the  act  of  March  2, 
fixed  the  qualifications  of  delegates  to  the  constitutional  convention. 
Section  3  of  the  amendment  provided :  "  No  person  shaU  be  a  Senator 
or  Representative  in  Congress,  or  Elector  of  President  and  Vice-President, 
or  hold  any  office,  civil  or  militar\',  under  the  United  States,  or  under  any 
State,  who,  having  previously  taken  an  oath  as  a  member  of  Congress,  or 
as  an  officer  of  the  United  States,  or  as  a  member  of  any  State  legislature. 


246  RECONSTRUCTION. 

or  as  an  executive  or  judicial  officer  of  any  State^  to  support  the  Consti- 
tution of  the  United  States,  shall  have  engaged  in  insurrection  or  rebellion 
against  the  same,  or  given  aid  or  comfort  to  the  enemies  thereof.  But 
Congress  may,  by  a  vote  of  two  thirds  of  each  House,  remove  such  disa- 
bility." And  the  act  provided,  "  That  no  person  excluded  from  the  privi- 
lege of  holding  office  by  said  proposed  amendment  to  the  Constitution  of 
the  United  States  shall  be  eligible  to  election  as  a  member  of  the  conven- 
tion to  frame  a  constitution  for  any  of  said  Rebel  States,  nor  shall  any 
such  person  vote  for  members  of  such  convention." 

Second,  the  act  of  March  2,  1867,  fixed  the  qualifications  of  electors 
for  delegates  to  the  conventions.  The  constitution  in  any  State  was  to 
be  ''  framed  by  a  convention  of  delegates  elected  by  the  male  citizens  of 
said  State  twenty-one  years  old  and  upward,  of  whatever  race,  color,  or 
previous  condition,  who  have  been  resident  in  said  State  for  one  year 
previous  to  the  day  of  such  election,  except  such  as  may  be  disfranchised 
for  participation  in  the  Rebellion,  or  for  felony  at  common  law."  Fur- 
ther, the  classes  described  in  the  third  section  of  the  Fourteenth  Amend- 
ment were  disfranchised  so  far  as  these  elections  for  delegates  were 
concerned :  '*  Nor  shall  any  such  person  vote  for  members  of  such  con- 
vention." They  could  be  neither  delegates  nor  electors  of  delegates. 
Still  further,  the  commanding  general  in  each  district  was  required  by 
the  Supplemental  Act  of  March  27,  1867,  to  ''  cause  a  registration  to  be 
made  of  the  male  citizens  of  the  United  States,  twenty-one  years  of  age 
and  upwards,  resident  in  each  county  or  parish  of  the  State  or  States  in- 
cluded in  his  district,  which  registration  should  include  only  those  persons 
who  are  qualified  to  vote  for  delegates  "  by  the  act  of  March  2,  "  and 
who  shall  have  taken  and  subscribed  the  following  oath  or  affirmation : 

'  I,  ,  do  solemnly  swear  (or  affirm),  in  the  presence  of  Almighty 

God,  that  I  am  a  citizen  of  the  State  of ;   that  I  have  resided  in 

said  State  for months  next  preceding  this  day,  and  now  reside  in  the 

county  of ,  or  the  parish  of ,  in  said  State  (as  the  case  may  be) ; 

that  I  am  twenty-one  years  old ;  that  I  have  not  been  disfranchised  for 
participation  in  any  rebellion  or  civil  war  against  the  United  States,  nor  for 
felony  committed  against  the  laws  of  any  State  or  of  the  United  States ;  that 
I  have  never  been  a  member  of  any  State  legislature,  nor  held  any  exec- 
utive or  judicial  office  in  any  State  and  afterwards  engaged  in  insurrec- 
tion or  rebellion  against  the  United  States,  or  given  aid  or  comfort  to  the 
enemies  thereof;  that  I  have  never  taken  an  oath  as  a  member  of  Con- 
gress of  the  United  States,  or  as  an  officer  of  the  United  States,  or  as  a 
member  of  any  State  legislature,  or  as  an  executive  or  judicial  officer  of 
any  State,  to  support  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States,  and  after- 
wards engaged  in  insurrection  or  rebellion  against  the  United  States,  or 
given  aid  or  comfort  to  the  enemies  thereof;  that  I  will  faithfully  support 
the  Constitution  and  obey  the  laws  of  the  United  States,  and  will,  to  the 


RECONSTRUCTION.  247 

best  of  my  ability,  encourage  others  so  to  do,  so  help  me  God.*  "  Again, 
according  to  the  Supplemental  Act,  Section  4,  only  qualified  electors  for 
convention  delegates  could  vote  on  the  question  of  ratification,  when  the 
constitution  was  submitted  to  the  people.  "  Said  constitution  shall  be 
submitted  by  the  convention  for  ratification  to  the  persons  registered 
under  the  provisions  of  this  act,  at  an  election  to  be  conducted  by  the 
officers  or  persons  appointed  or  to  be  appointed  by  the  commanding 
general,  or  hereinbefore  provided,"  etc. 

Third,  the  care  of  Congress  did  not  stop  even  here.  The  act  of  March  2 
expressly  stipulated  that  the  constitution  framed  in  any  State  "  shall  pro- 
vide that  the  elective  franchise  shall  be  enjoyed  by  all  such  persons  as 
have  the  qualifications  herein  stated  for  electors  of  delegates."  (Sec.  5.) 
The  basis  of  suffrage  could  be  widened  but  not  narrowed.  More  persons 
could  be  allowed  to  vote,  but  those  now  allowed  could  not  be  denied. 
The  disfranchising  features  of  the  Reconstruction  Acts  need  not  be  con- 
tinued, but  the  grant  of  the  ballot  to  non-disfiranchised  male  citizens 
"  twenty-one  years  old  and  upwards,  of  whatever  race,  color,  or  previous 
condition,"  could  not  be  withdrawn.  No  one  can  mistake  the  meaning 
of  this  clause :  Congress  had  now  granted  the  elective  franchise  to  the 
negro,  and  was  determined  that  neither  State  convention  nor  State  legis- 
lature should  work  an  exclusion.  Until  a  State  should  grant  the  ballot  to 
the  freedmen,  it  would  not  be  admitted  to  representation  in  Congress,  and 
would  not  be  held  reconstructed.  But  beyond  all  this,  the  acts  to  admit 
the  States  to  representation  in  Congress  (see  June  22  and  June  25,  1868) 
imposed  upon  them  "  the  fundamental  condition,"  that  the  constitution 
of  no  one  of  them  "  should  ever  be  so  changed  as  to  undo  what  had  been 
done  in  harmony  with  the  above-recited  provisions  in  respect  to  making 
the  suffrage  independent  of  race,  color,  or  previous  condition."  Beyond 
this,  it  was  impossible  that  national  legislation  should  go.  In  the  Rebel 
States,  therefore,  there  was  no  need  of  the  Fifteenth  Amendment,  so  far  as 
gaining  the  suffrage  of  the  black  man  was  concerned.  Nor  was  there  any 
need,  for  this  purpose,  of  the  second  section  of  the  Fourteenth  Amend- 
ment, which  looked  to  gaining  the  suffrage  by  indirection.  Hence,  from 
this  point  of  view,  the  Fifteenth  Amendment  was  superior  to  the  Four- 
teenth and  to  the  Reconstruction  Acts  in  these  particulars.  The  first 
put  in  the  Constitution  what  the  last  put  only  in  a  simple  statute ;  the 
first  applied  to  all  the  States,  the  last  only  to  those  named  jn  the  pream- 
ble of  the  Reconstruction  Act ;  the  first  did  openly  and  directly  what  the 
last  did  in  a  roundabout  manner.  Except  this  guaranty  to  the  colored 
man,  the  State  conventions  and  legislatures  were  to  manage  the  suffrage  in 
their  own  way.  Here  it  should  be  added  that  Congress  paid  no  atten- 
tion to  President  Johnson,  who  all  the  time  was  issuing  proclamations  of 
amnesty,  and  granting  pardons  in  harmony  with  his  proclamation  of  May 
29,  1865.   It  should  also  be  observed,  that  the  disabilities  imposed  by  the 


248  RECONSTRUCTION. 

Fourteenth  Amendment  could  be  removed  only  by  the  national  legisla- 
ture. "  But  Congress  may,  by  a  vote  of  two  thirds  of  each  house,  remove 
such  disability." 

At  various  stages  of  the  reconstruction  legislation,  Mr.  Garfield  made 
the  remarks  that  are  here  brought  together.  On  the  8th  of  February, 
1867,  he  spoke  as  follows :  — 

MR.  SPEAKER,  —  In  the  short  time  allowed  me  I  can  say 
very  little.  But  I  desire  to  call  the  attention  of  the 
House  to  two  or  three  points  which,  in  my  judgment,  stand  out 
prominently,  and  which  should  control  our  action  upon  this 
measure. 

And,  first,  I  call  attention  to  the  fact  that,  from  the  collapse 
of  the  Rebellion  to  the  present  hour,  the  Congress  of  the  United 
States  has  undertaken  to  restore  the  States  lately  in  rebellion 
by  co-operation  with  their  people,  and  that  our  efforts  in  that 
direction  have  proved  a  complete  and  disastrous  failure.  We 
commenced,  sir,  by  waiving  nine  tenths  of  all  the  powers  we  had 
over  these  people,  and  adopting  a  policy  most  merciful  and 
magnanimous.  It  was  clearly  the  right  of  the  victorious  gov- 
ernment to  indict,  try,  convict,  and  hang  every  rebel  traitor  in 
the  South  for  his  bloody  conspiracy  against  the  republic.  In 
accordance  with  a  law  passed  by  the  first  Congress  that  met 
under  the  Constitution,  and  approved  by  Washington,  wc  might 
have  punished  with  death  by  hanging  every  Rebel  of  the  South. 
We  might  have  confiscated  the  last  dollar  of  the  last  Rebel  to 
aid  in  paying  the  cost  of  the  war.  Or,  adopting  a  more  merci- 
ful policy,  we  might  have  declared  that  no  man  who  voluntarily 
went  into  the  Rebellion  should  ever  again  enjoy  the  rights  of  a 
citizen  of  the  United  States.  They  forfeited  every  right  of  citi- 
zenship by  becoming  traitors  and  public  enemies.  What  the 
conquering  sovereign  would  do  with  them  was  for  Congress  to 
declare. 

Now,  with  all  these  powers  in  its  hands.  Congress  resolved  to 
do  nothing  for  vengeance,  but  everything  for  liberty  and  safety. 
The  representatives  of  the  nation  said  to  the  people  of  the 
South,  "  Join  with  us  in  giving  liberty  and  justice  to  that  race 
which  you  have  so  long  outraged,  make  it  safe  for  free  loyal 
men  to  live  among  you,  bow  to  the  authority  of  our  common 
country,  and  we  will  forgive  the  carnage,  the  desolation,  the 
losses,  and  the  unutterable  woes  you  have  brought  upon  the 


RECONSTRUCTION,  249 

nation,  and  you  shall  come  back  to  your  places  in  the  Union 
with  no  other  personal  disability  than  this, — that  your  leaders 
shall  not  again  rule  us  except  by  the  consent  of  two  thirds  of 
both  houses  of  Congress."  That  was  the  proposition  which  this 
Congress  submitted  at  its  last  session ;  and  I  am  here  to  affirm 
to-day  that  so  magnanimous,  so  merciful  a  proposition  has  never 
been  submitted  by  a  sovereignty  to  rebels  since  the  day  when 
God  offered  forgiveness  to  the  fallen  sons  of  men. 

The  Fourteenth  Amendment  did  not  come  up  to  the  full 
height  of  the  great  occasion ;  it  did  not  meet  all  that  I  desired 
in  the  way  of  guaranties  to  liberty;  but  if  all  the  Rebel  States 
had  adopted  it  as  Tennessee  did,  I  should  have  felt  bound  to  let 
them  in  on  the  terms  prescribed  for  Tennessee.  I  have  also 
been  in  favor  of  waiting,  to  give  them  full  time  to  deliberate  and 
act.  They  have  deliberated ;  they  have  acted ;  the  last  one  of 
the  sinful  ten  has  at  last,  with  contempt  and  scorn,  flung  back 
into  our  teeth  the  magnanimous  offer  of  a  generous  nation ; 
and  it  is  now  our  turn  to  act.  They  would  not  co-operate 
with  us  in  rebuilding  what  they  destroyed;  we  must  remove 
the  rubbish  and  rebuild  from  the  bottom.  Whether  they  are 
willing  or  not,  we  must  compel  obedience  to  the  Union,  and 
demand  protection  for  its  humblest  citizen  wherever  the  flag 
floats.  We  must  so  exert  the  power  of  the  nation  that  it  shall 
be  deemed  both  safe  and  honorable  to  have  been  loyal  in  the 
midst  of  treason.  We  must  see  to  it  that  the  frightful  carnival 
of  blood  now  raging  in  the  South  shall  continue  no  longer.  We 
must  make  it  possible  for  the  humblest  citizen  of  the  United 
States  —  from  whatever  State  he  may  come  —  to  travel  in  safety 
from  the  Ohio  River  to  the  Gulf.  In  short,  we  must  plant  lib- 
erty on  the  ruins  of  slavery,  and  establish  law  and  peace  where 
anarchy  and  violence  now  reign.  I  believe,  sir,  the  time  has 
come  when  we  must  lay  the  heavy  hand  of  military  author- 
ity upon  these  Rebel  communities,  and  hold  them  in  its  grasp 
till  their  madness  is  past,  and  until,  clothed  and  in  their  right 
minds,  they  come  bowing  to  the  authority  of  the  Union,  and 
taking  their  places  loyally  in  the  family  circle  of  the  States. 

Now,  Mr.  Speaker,  I  am  aware  that  this  is  a  severe  and  strin- 
gent measure.  I  do  not  hesitate  to  say  that  I  give  my  assent 
to  its  main  features  with  many  misgivings.  I  am  not  unmind- 
ful of  the  grave  suggestions  of  the  gentleman  from  New  York,^ 

1  Mr.  Raymond. 


2  50  RECONSTR  UCTION. 

in  reference  to  the  history  of  such  legislation  in  other  coun- 
tries and  other  ages ;  I  remember,  too,  that  upon  the  walls  of 
imperial  Rome  a  Praetorian  guard  announced  that  the  world  was 
for  sale,  and  that  the  legions  knocked  down  the  imperial  purple 
to  the  highest  bidder ;  but  I  beg  to  remind  the  gentleman  that 
this  is  not  a  proposition  to  commit  the  liberties  of  the  republic 
into  the  hands  of  the  military ;  it  is  a  new  article  of  war,  com- 
manding the  army  to  return  to  its  work  of  putting  down  the 
Rebellion,  by  maintaining  the  honor  and  keeping  the  peace 
of  the  nation.  If  the  officers  of  our  army  should  need  such  a 
suggestion,  let  them  remember  that  no  people  on  earth  have 
shown  themselves  so  able  to  pull  down  their  idols  as  the  Amer- 
ican people.  However  much  honored  and  beloved  a  man  may 
be,  if  the  day  ever  comes  when  he  shows  himself  untrue  to  lib- 
erty, they  will  pluck  him  out  of  their  very  hearts,  and  trample 
him  indignantly  under  their  feet.  We  have  seen  this  in  the  mil- 
itary history  of  the  last  five  years,  and  in  the  political  history  of 
the  last  campaign. 

Now,  we  propose  for  a  short 'time  to  assign  our  army  to  this 
duty  for  specific  and  beneficent  purposes ;  namely,  to  keep  the 
peace  until  we  can  exercise  the  high  functions  enjoined  upon  us 
in  the  Constitution,  of  giving  to  these  States  republican  gov- 
ernments based  upon  the  will  of  the  whole  loyal  people.  The 
generals  of  our  army  enjoy  in  a  wonderful  degree  the  confi- 
dence of  the  nation ;  but  if,  for  any  cause,  the  most  honored 
among  them  should  lay  his  hands  unlawfully  upon  the  liberty 
of  the  humblest  citizen,  he  would  be  trampled  under  the  feet  of 
millions  of  indignant  freemen.  We  are  not,  as  some  gentlemen 
seem  to  suppose,  stretching  out  helpless  hands  to  the  army  for 
aid ;  we  are  commanding  them,  as  public  servants,  to  do  this 
work  in  the  interest  of  liberty. 

I  have  spoken  only  of  the  general  purpose  of  this  bill.  I 
now  desire  to  say  that  I  am  not  satisfied  with  the  manner  in 
which  it  is  proposed  to  pass  it  through  this  House.  I  demand 
that  it  be  opened  for  amendment,  as  well  as  for  discussion.  I 
will  not  consent  that  any  one  man  or  committee  in  this  House 
shall  frame  a  bill  of  this  importance,  and  compel  me  to  vote  for 
or  against  it,  without  an  opportunity  to  suggest  amendments  to 
its  provisions.  However  unimportant  my  own  opinions  may 
be,  other  men  shall  not  do  my  thinking  for  me.  There  are 
some  words  which   I  want  stricken  out  of  this  bill,  and  some 


RECONSTR  UCTION.  2$  I 

limitations  I  want  added.  I  at  least  shall  ask  that  they  be  con- 
sidered. I  trust  the  gentleman  who  has  the  bill  in  charge  will 
allow  a  full  opportunity  for  amendment,  and  that  the  bill,  prop- 
erly guarded,  may  become  a  law. 


On  the  12th  of  February,  Mr.  Garfield  spoke  as  follows,  in  reply  to 
Mr.  Harding,  of  Kentucky  :  — 

Mr.  Speaker,  —  I  would  not  ask  the  further  attention  of  the 
House  upon  this  subject,  were  it  not  that  I  find  myself  very  se- 
riously misrepresented,  here  and  elsewhere,  in  reference  to  my 
remarks  on  Friday  last.  I  would  not  have  the  worst  Rebel  in 
the  world  suppose  me  capable  of  anything  like  malignity  to- 
ward even  him.  I  therefore  take  this  occasion  to  contradict  the 
representation  made  by  the  gentleman  from  Kentucky,  (as  I  am 
informed,  for  I  did  not  hear  him  myself,)  that  I  had  declared 
that,  though  I  had  hitherto  been  in  favor  of  magnanimity  to- 
ward the  people  of  the  South,  I  was  now  in  favor  of  enforcing 
a  bloodthirsty  policy  against  them.  I  have  never  uttered  such 
a  sentiment.  All  that  I  did  say  was  said  directly  and  explicitly 
upon  the  single  question  of  the  Fourteenth  Amendment  as  a 
basis  of  restoration.  I  did  say  the  other  day,  and  I  say  now, 
that  if  the  amendment  proposed  at  the  last  session  of  Con- 
gress had  been  ratified  by  all  the  States  lately  in  rebellion,  in 
the  same  way  that  Tennessee  ratified  it,  and  if  those  States 
had  done  all  the  other  things  that  Tennessee  did,  I  should 
have  felt  myself  morally  bound,  (though  it  fell  very  far  short 
of  full  justice  and  of  my  own  views  of  good  statesmanship,) 
and  I  believed  the  Thirty-ninth  Congress  would  have  been  mor- 
ally bound,  to  admit  every  one  of  the  Rebel  States  on  the  same 
terms. 

Many  members  know  that  I  have  been  opposed  to  taking  fur- 
ther decisive  action  until  every  Rebel  State  had  had  full  oppor- 
tunity to  act  upon  the  Amendment.  Now  that  they  have  all 
rejected  it,  I  consider  their  action  as  final,  and  say,  as  I  said 
on  Friday  last,  that  that  offer,  as  a  basis  of  reconstruction,  is 
forever  closed  so  far  as  my  vote  is  concerned.  The  time  has 
come  when  we  must  protect  the  loyal  men  of  the  South ;  the 
time  has  come  when   fruitless   magnanimity  to  rebels  is  cruelty 


252  RECONSTRUCTION. 

to  our  friends.  No  other  victorious  nation  has  ever  so  neglected 
its  supporters.  For  a  quarter  of  a  century  the  British  govern- 
ment gave  special  protection  to  the  Tories  of  the  American 
Revolution,  paying  them  fifteen  million  dollars  out  of  the  royal 
treasury.  What  loyal  man  of  any  Rebel  State,  except  Tennes- 
see, has  been  honored  or  defended  by  the  Federal  government  ? 
It  is  a  notorious  fact,  that  it  is  both  honorable  and  safe  in  the 
South  to  have  been  a  Rebel,  while  it  is  both  dangerous  and  dis- 
graceful for  a  Southerner  to  have  been  loyal  to  the  Union. 
Loyal  men  are  every  day  perishing  as  unavenged  victims  of 
Rebel  malignity.  I  desire  to  say,  also,  that  I  am  in  favor  of 
placing  these  States  under  military  jurisdiction  only  as  a  tem- 
porary measure  of  protection,  until  republican  governments  can 
be  organized,  based  upon  the  will  of  all  the  loyal  people,  with- 
out regard  to  race  or  color. 

Now,  Mr.  Speaker,  as  the  gentleman  from  Kentucky  volun- 
teered to  read  me  a  lecture  on  bloodthirstiness,  and  reminded 
me  of  the  sinfulness  of  human  nature  as  represented  in  myself, 
I  will  volunteer  a  few  suggestions  and  reflections  to  him  and  the 
party  with  which  he  acts.  I  remind  the  gentleman  that  his 
party  and  the  President  who  leads  it  have  had  it  in  their  power 
any  day  during  the  last  twenty-two  months  to  close  the  bleed- 
ing wounds  of  this  grievous  war,  and  restore  the  States  lately  in 
rebellion  to  their  proper  places  in  the  Union.  I  tell  that  gen- 
tleman that  if,  on  any  one  day  during  the  war,  he  and  his  party 
had  risen  up  and  said,  honestly  and  unanimously,  "We  join  the 
loyal  men  of  the  nation  to  put  down  the  Rebellion,"  the  war 
would  not  have  lasted  a  twelvemonth.  The  army  never  feared 
the  enemy  in  its  front;  it  was  the  enemy  in  the  rear,  with  their 
ballots  and  plots  aj^ainst  the  Union  and  their  sympathy  with  the 
Rebellion,  which  continued  the  war  and  wasted  and  desolated 
the  land  with  blood  and  fire.  That  party  is  responsible  for 
more  of  the  carnage  of  the  war  than  anybody  else  this  side  of 
the  Rebels. 

But,  sir,  the  gentleman  and  his  party  have  made  a  record 
since  the  war  ended.  If  the  Democratic  party,  with  the  Pres- 
ident at  its  head,  had,  on  any  day  since  July  last,  advised  the 
people  of  the  South  to  accept  the  Fourteenth  Amendment  and 
come  in  as  Tennessee  did,  it  would  have  been  done.  I  have 
information  from  a  source  entirely  reliable,  that  but  little  more 
than  one  month  ago  Alabama  was  on  the  eve  of  accepting  that 


RECONSTRUCTION.  253 

Amendment  when  a  telegram  from  Washington  dissuaded  her 
from  doing  so  and  led  her  rashly  to  reject  it.  Of  all  men  on 
earth  the  gentleman  and  his  party  have  the  least  right  to  preach 
the  doctrine  of  mercy  to  this  side  of  the  House.  That  mercy 
which  smiles  only  on  murder,  treason,  and  rebellion,  and  has 
only  frowns  for  loyalty  and  patriotism,  becomes  the  gentleman 
and  his  party. 

I  cannot  agree  with  all  that  has  just  been  said  by  my  friends 
on  this  side,  that  our  own  party  in  Congress  have  been  so  very 
virtuous  and  true  to  liberty.  I  cannot  forget  that  we  have 
learned  very  slowly ;  I  cannot  forget  that  less  than  four  years 
ago  the  proposition  to  allow  negroes  any  share  in  putting  down 
the  Rebellion  was  received  with  alarm  in  this  hall  and  even  on 
this  side  of  the  House.  I  cannot  forget  that  less  than  five  years 
ago  I  received  an  order  from  my  superior  officer  in  the  army 
commanding  me  to  search  my  camp  for  a  fugitive  slave,  and  if 
found  to  deliver  him  up  to  a  Kentucky  captain,  who  claimed 
him  as  his  property ;  and  I  had  the  honor  to  be  perhaps  the 
first  officer  in  the  army  who  peremptorily  refused  to  obey  such 
an  order.  We  were  then  trying  to  save  the  Union  without 
hurting  slavery.  I  remember,  sir,  that  when  we  undertook  to 
agitate  in  the  army  the  question  of  putting  arms  into  the  hands 
of  the  slaves,  it  was  said,  "  Such  a  step  will  be  fatal,  it  will 
alienate  half  our  army  and  lose  us  Kentucky."  By  and  by,  when 
our  necessities  were  imperious,  we  ventured  to  let  the  negro  dig 
in  the  trenches,  but  it  would  not  do  to  put  muskets  into  his 
hands.  We  ventured  to  let  the  negro  drive  a  mule  team,  but  it 
would  not  do  to  have  a  white  man  or  a  mulatto  just  in  front  of 
him  or  behind  him ;  all  must  be  negroes  in  that  train ;  you  must 
not  disgrace  a  white  soldier  by  putting  him  in  such  company. 
By  and  by  some  one  said,  "  Rebel  guerillas  may  capture  the 
mules ;  so  for  the  sake  of  the  mules  let  us  put  a  few  muskets  in 
the  wagons  and  let  the  negroes  shoot  the  guerillas  if  they  come." 
So  for  the  sake  of  the  mules  wc  enlarged  the  limits  of  liberty  a 
little.  By  and  by  we  allowed  the  negroes  to  build  fortifications 
and  armed  them  to  save  the  earthworks  they  had  made,  —  not 
to  do  justice  to  the  negro,  but  to  protect  the  earth  he  had 
thrown  up.  By  and  by  wc  said  in  this  hall  that  we  would  arm 
the  negroes,  but  they  must  not  be  called  soldiers  nor  wear  the 
national  uniform,  for  that  would  degrade  white  soldiers.  By 
and  by  we  said,  "  Let  them  wear  the  uniform,  but  they  must 


254  RECONSTRUCTION. 

not  receive  the  pay  of  soldiers."  For  six  months  we  did  not 
pay  them  enough  to  feed  and  clothe  them ;  and  their  shattered 
regiments  came  home  from  South  CaroHna  in  debt  to  the  gov- 
ernment for  the  clothes  they  wore.  It  took  us  two  years  to 
reach  a  point  where  we  were  willing  to  do  the  most  meagre  jus- 
tice to  the  black  man,  and  to  recognize  the  truth  that  — 

"  A  man's  a  man  for  a*  that.** 

It  will  not  do  for  our  friends  on  this  side  to  boast  even  of  the 
early  virtues  of  the  Thirty-ninth  Congress.  I  remember  very 
well,  Mr.  Speaker,  during  the  last  session,  that  forty  of  us  tried 
to  bring  the  issue  of  manhood  suffrage  before  Congress.  Our 
friends  said,  "  You  are  impracticable ;  you  will  be  beaten  at  the 
polls  if  you  go  before  the  people  on  that  issue ;  make  haste 
slowly."  Let  us  not  be  too  proud  of  what  we  did  at  the  last 
session.  For  my  part,  I  am  heartily  ashamed  of  our  short- 
comings and  the  small  measure  of  justice  we  meted  out  to  our 
best  friends  in  the  South. 

But,  sir,  the  hand  of  God  has  been  visible  in  this  work,  lead- 
ing us  by  degrees  out  of  the  blindness  of  our  prejudices  to  see 
that  the  fortunes  of  the  Republic  and  the  safety  of  the  party  of 
liberty  are  inseparably  bound  up  with  the  rights  of  the  black 
man.  At  last  our  party  must  see  that,  if  it  would  preserve  its 
political  life,  or  maintain  the  safety  of  the  Republic,  we  must 
do  justice  to  the  humblest  man  in  the  nation,  whether  black  or 
white.  I  thank  God  that  to-day  we  have  struck  the  rock ;  we 
have  planted  our  feet  upon  solid  earth.  Streams  of  light  will 
gleam  out  from  the  luminous  truth  embodied  in  the  legislation 
of  this  day.  This  is  the  ne  plus  ultra  of  reconstruction,  and  I 
hope  we  shall  have  the  courage  to  go  before  our  people  every- 
where with  **  This  or  nothing  "  for  our  motto. 

Now,  sir,  as  a  temporary  measure,  I  give  my  support  to  this 
military  bill,  properly  restricted.  It  is  severe.  It  was  written 
with  a  steel  pen  made  out  of  a  bayonet ;  and  bayonets  have 
done  us  good  service  hitherto.  All  I  ask  is,  that  Congress  shall 
place  civil  governments  before  these  people  of  the  Rebel  States, 
and  a  cordon  of  bayonets  behind  them. 


RECONSTRUCTION.  255 

On  the  i8th  of  February,  the  House  having  under  consideration  the 
Military  Reconstruction  Bill,  with  the  Senate  amendments,  providing  for 
establishing  civil  governments  in  the  Rebel  States  based  upon  manhood 
suf&age,  Mr.  Garfield  spoke  as  follows :  — 

Mr.  Speaker,  —  The  House  will  remember  that  I  did  what  I 
could  when  this  bill  was  first  before  us  to  secure  an  amendment 
which  would  open  the  way  for  restoring  the  Rebel  States  to 
their  practical  relations  to  the  Union,  whenever  they  should  es- 
tablish Republican  governments  based  on  manhood  suflfragc. 
By  the  votes  of  Democratic  members,  the  Blaine  Amendment 
failed  here,  but,  by  an  almost  unanimous  vote,  the  Senate  have 
added  some  well-considered  sections,  which  effect  the  same  ob- 
ject and  make  the  bill  more  perfect  than  any  yet  proposed.  It 
is  not  all  I  could  wish,  but  as  we  are  now  within  a  few  hours  of 
the  time  when  all  the  legislation  of  the  Thirty-ninth  Congress 
will  be  wholly  in  the  power  of  the  President,  we  are  compelled 
to  accept  this  or  run  the  risk  of  getting  nothing.  Now  what 
does  this  bill  propose?  It  lays  the  hands  of  the  nation  upon 
the  Rebel  State  governments,  and  takes  the  breath  of  life  out  of 
them.  It  puts  the  bayonet  at  the  breast  of  every  Rebel  mur- 
derer in  the  South  to  bring  him  to  justice.  It  commands  the 
army  to  protect  the  life  and  property  of  citizens,  whether  black 
or  white.  It  places  in  the  hands  of  Congress  absolutely  and 
irrevocably  the  whole  work  of  reconstruction. 

With  this  thunderbolt  in  our  hands  shall  we  stagger  like  idiots 
under  its  weight?  Have  we  grasped  a  weapon  which  we  have 
neither  the  courage  nor  the  wisdom  to  wield?  If  I  were  afraid 
of  this  Congress  and  the  next,  —  afraid  of  my  shadow,  afraid  of 
myself,  —  I  would  declaim  against  this  bill  as  gentlemen  around 
me  have  done.  They  have  spoken  vehemently,  solemnly,  se- 
pulchrally,  against  it,  but  they  have  not  done  us  the  favor  to 
quote  a  line  from  the  bill  itself  to  prove  that  it  has  any  of  the 
defects  they  charge.  They  tell  us  it  proposes  universal  amnesty 
to  Rebels,  but  I  challenge  them  to  find  the  shadow  of  that 
thought  in  the  bill.  They  tell  us  it  puts  the  State  governments 
into  the  hands  of  Rebels.  I  deny  it  unless  I  am  a  Rebel  and 
this  is  a  Rebel  Congress.  They  tell  us  it  is  a  surrender  to  the 
President,  because  it  directs  him  to  detail  officers  to  command 
the  military  districts.  Mr.  Speaker,  I  want  this  Congress  to  give 
its  commands  to  the  President.  If  he  refuses  to  obey,  the  im- 
peachment-hunters need  make  no  further  search  for  cause  of 


256  RECONSTRUCTION. 

action.  There  may  be  abundant  cause  now,  but  disobedience 
to  thb  order  will  place  it  beyond  all  question,  —  our  duty  to  im- 
peach him  will  be  plain  and  imperative. 

Mr.  Speaker,  there  are  some  gentiemen  here  who  live  in  a 
world  far  above  my  poor  comprehension.  They  dwell  with 
eagles,  —  on  mountain  peaks,  —  in  the  region  of  perpetual  frost ; 
and  in  that  ethereal  air,  with  purged  vision,  they  discern  the  lin- 
eaments in  the  face  of  freedom  so  much  more  clearly  than  I  do, 
that  sometimes  when  I  and  other  common  mortals  here  have 
almost  within  our  reach  a  measure  which  we  think  a  great  gain 
to  liberty,  they  come  down  and  tell  us  our  measure  is  low  and 
mean,  —  a  compromise  with  the  enemy  and  a  surrender  of  lib- 
erty. I  remember  an  example  of  this  at  the  close  of  the  last 
session.  Many  of  us  had  tried  in  vain  to  put  manhood  suffrage 
into  the  Fourteenth  Amendment;  but  all  knew  that  the  safety 
Qf  the  nation  and  the  life  of  the  Union  party  were  bound  up 
in  the  passage  of  that  Amendment  in  the  shape  it  finally  as- 
sumed. At  the  last  moment,  when  it  was  known  that  the 
Union  party  in  this  body  had  determined  to  pass  it,  the  pre- 
vious question  was  withheld  to  allow  these  exalted  thinkers  to 
denounce  it  as  an  unworthy,  unstatesmanlike  surrender.  But 
the  House  passed  it,  the  Senate  concurred,  and  the  people  ap- 
proved it  by  the  most  overwhelming  majorities  known  in  our 
political  history. 

The  pending  measure,  Mr.  Speaker,  goes  far  beyond  the 
Fourteenth  Amendment,  and  in  addition  to  other  beneficent 
provisions  it  recognizes  and  secures  forever  the  full  political 
rights  of  all  loyal  men  in  the  Rebel  States,  without  distinction 
of  race  or  color.  If  any  gentleman  can  show  me  a  greater 
gain  to  liberty  in  the  last  half-century,  he  will  open  a  chapter 
of  history  which  it  has  not  been  my  privilege  to  read.  But 
these  sublime  political  philosophers  regard  it  as  wholly  unwor- 
thy their  high  sanction. 

Mr.  Speaker,  some  of  us  are  so  irreverent  as  to  begin  to  sus- 
pect that  the  real  reason  for  opposing  this  bill  is  to  be  found  in 
another  direction.  The  distinguished  gentieman  from  Pennsyl- 
vania ^  made  a  remark  this  morning  which  may  explain  his  op- 
position. He  complained  that  the  Senate  had  forced  upon  us 
the  question  of  reconstruction,  which  our  bill  did  not  touch. 
His  course  on  this  measure  leads  me  to  suspect  that  he  does 

1  Mr.  Stevens. 


RECONSTR  UCTION.  257 

not  desire  to  touch  the  question  of  reconstruction.  For  my 
part,  I  desire  that  these  Rebel  States  shall  be  restored  at  the 
earliest  moment  that  safety  and  liberty  will  allow.  The  Amer- 
ican people  desire  reconstruction.  At  the  beginning  of  the  war 
the  fiat  of  the  nation  went  forth  that  the  Union  should  not  be 
destroyed,  —  that  the  Rebel  States  should  be  brought  back  to 
their  places.  To  this  end  they  fought  and  suffered ;  to  this  end 
they  have  voted  and  we  have  legislated.  They  demand  that  we 
delay  reconstruction  until  it  can  be  done  in  the  interest  of  lib- 
erty. Beyond  that  they  will  tolerate  no  delay.  Such  a  recon- 
struction is  provided  for  in  this  bill.  I  therefore  give  it  my 
cordial  support. 


On  the  17th  of  January,  1868,  Mr.  Garfield  made  the  following  re- 
marks upon  a  bill  introduced  by  Mr.  Bingham,  of  Ohio,  additional  and 
supplemental  to  the  Reconstruction  Act  of  March  2,  1867.  The  bill 
passed  the  House,  but  never  came  to  a  vote  in  the  Senate. 

Mr.  Speaker,  —  I  shall  spend  none  of  the  few  minutes 
given  to  me  in  discussing  the  constitutionality  or  propriety 
of  the  first  section  of  this  bill,  which  declares  that  the  so-called 
State  governments  in  ten  of  the  rebellious  States  that  were  set 
up  by  the  President  without  consent  of  the  people  thereof,  and 
without  the  authority  of  Congress,  are  neither  republican  in 
form  nor  valid  in  law.  Whatever  may  be  the  opinions  of  any 
gentlemen  here,  the  doctrine  involved  in  that  section  was  decid- 
ed by  the  Thirty-ninth  Congress,  and  that  decision  was  ratified 
by  the  people  when  the  Fortieth  Congress  was  elected.  No 
political  issue  was  more  clearly  defined  or  more  decisively  set- 
tled. Let  me  remind  the  House  what  that  issue  involved,  and 
what  was  decided  by  the  result. 

The  President  and  his  followers  held  that,  though  the  Rebel- 
lion had  overthrown  all  civil  government  in  the  Rebel  States, 
yet  he,  as  the  head  of  the  Federal  government,  had  set  up  new 
governments,  which  he  deemed  republican  in  form,  and  which 
were  therefore  entitled  to  representation  in  Congress.  Congress 
denied  the  authority  of  the  President  to  build  State  govern- 
ments, and  claimed  that,  by  the  decision  of  the  Supreme  Court, 
it  was  made  the  duty  of  Congress  to  provide  for  carrying  into 
effect  that   clause  of  the    Constitution   which    declares,  "The 

VOL.  I.  17 


2S8  RECONSTRUCTION. 

United  States  shall  guarantee  to  every  State  in  this  Union  a  re- 
publican form  of  government"  Congress  decreed  that,  until 
the  restoration  shall  be  accomplished,  the  Rebel  States  shall  be 
held  in  the  military  grasp  of  the  Republic;  and,  in  order  to 
restore  them  at  the  earliest  possible  day,  a  law  was  passed  ena- 
bling the  loyal  people  to  form  governments  and  build  again 
where  rebellion  had  destroyed.  Congress  did  not  commit  itself 
to  the  dogma  that  those  States  were  out  of  the  Union,  but  it 
proceeded  upon  the  acknowledged  fact  that  their  civil  govern- 
ments were  utterly  destroyed  and  should  be  rebuilt  The  Con- 
gressional plan  and  the  President's  plan  were  placed  on  trial 
before  the  people  in  the  fall  of  1866.  That  the  verdict  was 
against  the  Presidential  and  in  favor  of  the  Congressional  plan, 
is  witnessed  by  the  relative  strength  of  the  two  parties  on  this 
floor  to-day.  We  are  here  to  obey  the  people  who  sent  us. 
The  first  section  of  this  bill  is  but  a  repetition,  in  clearer  lan- 
guage, of  the  law  of  the  Thirty-ninth  Congress.  For  all  political 
purposes,  therefore,  the  doctrine  of  the  first  section  is  settled, 
and  the  case  is  closed. 

The  only  feature  to  which  I  desire  to  call  the  attention  of  the 
House  this  morning  is  the  second  section  of  the  bill.  This  sec- 
tion makes  it  the  duty  of  the  General  of  the  Army  to  assign 
such  officers  of  the  army  as  he  may  think  best  to  the  work  of 
carrying  out  the  reconstruction  law.  That  work  has  heretofore 
been  placed  in  the  hands  of  the  President.  Here  we  are  met  at 
the  threshold,  by  gentlemen  on  the  other  side,  with  the  decla- 
ration that  Congress  has  no  power  to  assign  the  General  of  the 
Army  and  his  subordinates  to  this  duty,  because  of  that  clause 
of  the  Constitution  which  makes  the  President  Commander-in- 
chief  of  the  Army  and  Navy.  I  ask  the  attention  of  the  House, 
for  a  few  moments,  to  the  consideration  of  this  objection. 

Under  the  laws  of  Great  Britain  the  king  is  not  only  Com- 
mander-in-chief of  the  Army  and  Navy,  but  is  empowered 
to  make  rules  and  regulations  for  the  government  of  the  land 
and  naval  forces  of  the  realm.  He  can  declare  war  and  con- 
clude peace.  He  is,  therefore,  in  the  full  sense  of  the  term, 
commander-in-chief.  The  Parliament  controls  him  chiefly  by 
its  right  to  grant  or  withhold  all  supplies  for  the  army  and 
navy.  When  our  fathers  framed  the  constitution  of  govern- 
ment under  which  we  live,  they  so  far  copied  the  British  law 
as  to  declare  that  the  President  of  the  United  States  should  be 


RECONSTR  UCTION.  259 

the  Commander-in-chief  of  the  Army  and  Navy ;  but  they  pro- 
ceeded to  limit  and  restrict  that  grant  of  power  by  six  distinct 
clauses  in  the  Constitution,  giving  six  distinct  powers  to  Con- 
gress. These  clauses  are  found  in  the  first  article,  section  eighth, 
and  are  as  follows :  — 

"  The  Congress  shall  have  power  .... 

"  To  declare  war,  grant  letters  of  marque  and  reprisal,  and  make  rules 
concerning  captures  on  land  and  water ; 

"  To  raise  and  support  armies,  but  no  appropriation  of  money  to  that 
use  shall  be  for  a  longer  term  than  two  years ; 

"  To  provide  and  maintain  a  navy ; 

"  To  make  rules  for  the  government  and  regulation  of  the  land  and 
naval  forces ; 

"  To  provide  for  calling  forth  the  militia  to  execute  the  laws  of  the 
Union,  suppress  insurrections,  and  repel  invasions ; 

"  To  provide  for  organizing,  arming,  and  disciplining  the  militia,  and 
for  governing  such  part  of  them  as  may  be  employed  in  the  service  of  the 
United  States,  reserving  to  the  States  respectively  the  appointment  of  the 
officers  and  the  authority  of  training  the  militia  according  to  the  discipline 
prescribed  by  Congress." 

The  power,  therefore,  which  is  conferred  upon  the  President 
by  the  declaration  of  the  Constitution  that  he  is  Commander-in- 
chief  must  always  be  understood  with  these  limitations.  With- 
out the  authority  of  Congress  there  can  be  no  War  Department, 
no  army,  no  navy.  Without  the  authority  of  Congress  there 
can  be  no  general  of  the  army.  Without  the  authority  of  Con- 
gress there  can  be  no  officers,  high  or  low,  in  the  army  or  navy 
of  the  United  States.  We  therefore  begin  with  these  constitu- 
tional limitations  of  the  President's  authority  as  Commander-in- 
chief.  Now,  how  has  Congress  used  its  power  heretofore  in 
reference  to  the  army?  In  1789,  by  an  act  approved  August  7, 
Congress  established  a  War  Department,  enacted  laws  to  gov- 
ern it,  and  from  time  to  time  thereafter  established  subordinate 
departments  and  bureaus  in  that  department. 

Let  it  be  noticed,  also,  that  another  clause  of  the  Constitu- 
tion may  be  applied  here.  Congress  may  authorize  the  heads 
of  departments  to  appoint  inferior  officers.  It  might  have  au- 
thorized the  Secretary  of  War  to  appoint  every  officer  of  the 
army.  It  can  do  so  now.  It  is  plainly  in  our  power  to  take 
every  military  appointment  from  the  President,  and  place  it 
solely  in  the  hands  of  the  Secretary  of  War.     Congress  did  not 


26o  RE  CONSTR  UCTION. 

choose  to  take  that  course,  but  it  did  establish  all  the  subordi- 
nate departments  of  the  government,  and  prescribes  the  duties 
of  officers  in  those  departments. 

By  an  act  of  Congress,  approved  May  22,  181 2,  the  Quarter- 
master-General is  authorized  to  appoint  barrack-masters.  Now, 
can  the  President  appoint  barrack-masters  in  contravention  of 
that  law?  Congress  conferred  that  power  upon  the  Quarter- 
master-General, and  the  President,  though  Commander-in-chief, 
cannot  exercise  that  function  without  usurpation.  The  same 
act  requires  quartermasters  to  give  properly  secured  bonds  be- 
fore performing  any  of  the  duties  of  their  appointment.  Can 
the  President  legally  order  them  to  perform  such  duty  before 
such  bonds  are  given? 

By  a  law  of  Congress  approved  April  10,  1806,  it  is  declared 
that  "  the  Judge- Advocate,  or  some  person  deputed  by  him  or 
by  the  general  or  officer  commanding  the  army,  detachment,  or 
garrison,  shall  prosecute  in  the  name  of  the  United  States.'*  Can 
the  President  of  the  United  States  prosecute  an  officer  or  pri- 
vate before  a  court-martial?  He  cannot,  because  Congress  has 
conferred  upon  a  subordinate  officer  of  the  army  that  power, 
and  the  President,  though  Commander-in-chief,  cannot  set  it 
aside. 

A  friend  near  me  says  these  are  subordinates.  I  answer,  that 
the  General  of  the  Army  of  the  United  States  is  also  a  subordi- 
nate. He  is,  to  Congress,  as  subordinate  as  a  judge-advocate,  a 
quartermaster,  or  a  barrack- master.  It  makes  no  difference 
how  high  his  rank  may  be,  he  is  none  the  less  subordinate  to 
Cojigress.  The  President  is  Commander-in-chief,  but  he  must 
command  in  accordance  with  the  Rules  and  Articles  of  War,  — 
the  acts  of  Congress. 

I  call  attention  to  the  oath  that  every  officer  and  enlisted  man 
takes  before  entering  the  army.  It  is  in  these  words :  '*  I  do 
solemnly  swear  that  I  will  bear  true  allegiance  to  the  United 
States,  ....  and  will  observe  and  obey  the  orders  of  the 
President  of  the  United  States,  and  the  orders  of  the  officers 
appointed  over  me,  according  to  the  rules  and  articles  for  the 
government  of  the  army  of  the  United  States."  Now,  should 
the  President  of  the  United  States  give  to  the  humblest  officer 
of  the  army  an  order  contrary  to  the  Rules  and  Articles  of  War, 
or  to  any  law  of  Congress,  the  subordinate  can  peremptorily 
refuse  to  obey,  because  the    order  has  not  been  given  in  ac- 


RECONSTR  UCTION.  26 1 

cordance  with  the  rules  and  regulations  of  the  power  which 
commands  both  him  and  the  President.  ' 

If  Congress  can  make  laws  assigning  special  duties  to  subordi- 
nate officers,  such  as  judge-advocates,  quartermasters,  and  bar- 
rack-masters, what  new  doctrine  is  this  that  it  may  not  also 
assign  special  duties  to  the  General  of  the  Army?  The  volumes 
of  statutes  are  full  of  laws  of  Congress,  commanding  all  classes 
of  officers  to  perform  all  kinds  of  duties.  It  is  now  proposed  to 
require  of  the  General  of  the  Army  the  performance  of  a  special 
duty,  —  the  duty  of  directing  the  operations  of  that  part  of  the 
army  which  occupies  the  States  lately  in  rebellion.  If  the  gen- 
eral should  neglect  this  duty,  the  President,  as  Commander-in- 
chief,  can  call  him  to  account  for  such  neglect,  but  he  cannot 
prevent  his  obedience  to  the  law. 

I  now  come  to  inquire  why  this  legislation  is  needed.  It  is 
because  this  Congress,  in  its  work  of  restoring  to  their  places 
the  States  lately  in  rebellion,  authorized  the  President  to  assign 
the  officers  of  the  army  to  the  duties  prescribed  in  the  law,  and 
the  President  has  made  such  use  of  that  authority  as  to  obstruct 
and  delay  the  restoration  of  those  States.  Without  violating 
the  letter  of  the  law,  he  has  been  able,  in  a  great  measure,  to 
hinder  its  full  and  efficient  execution.  His  acts  and  those 
of  his  advisers  are  to-day  the  chief  obstacles  to  the  prompt 
restoration  of  the  Rebel  States;  and  Congress  proposes  to 
remove  those  obstacles,  by  transferring  this  authority  to  the 
hands  of  one  who  has  shown  his  loyalty  to  the  country  and  his 
willingness  to  obey  the  laws  of  the  Union. 

Mr.  Speaker,  I  will  not  repeat  the  long  catalogue  of  obstaic- 
tions  which  the  President  has  thrown  in  the  way,  by  virtue  of 
the  power  conferred  upon  him  in  the  reconstruction  law  of  1867 1 
but  I  will  allude  to  one  example  where  he  has  found  in  a  major- 
general  of  the  army  a  facile  instrument  with  which  more  effect- 
ually to  obstruct  the  work  of  reconstruction.  This  case  is  all 
the  more  painful,  because  an  otherwise  meritorious  officer,  who 
bears  honorable  scars  earned  in  battle  for  the  Union,  has  been 
made  a  party  to  the  political  madness  which  has  so  long  marked 
the  conduct  of  the  President.  This  general  was  sent  into  the 
district  of  Louisiana  and  Texas  with  a  law  of  Congress  in  his 
hand,  a  law  that  commands  him  to  see  that  justice  is  adminis- 
tered among  the  people  of  that  country,  and  that  no  pretence  of 
civil  authority  shall  deter  him  from  performing  his  duty;  and 


262  RECONSTRUCTION. 

yet  we  find  that  officer  giving  lectures  in  the  form  of  proclama- 
tions and  orders  on  what  ought  to  be  the  relation  between  the 
civil  and  military  departments  of  the  government.  We  see  him 
issuing  a  general  order,  in  which  he  declares  that  the  civil  power 
should  not  give  way  before  the  military.  We  hear  him  declaring 
that  he  finds  nothing  in  the  laws  of  Louisiana  and  Texas  to  war- 
rant his  interference  in  the  civil  administration  of  those  States. 
It  is  not  for  him  to  say  which  should  be  first,  the  civil  or  the 
military  authority,  in  that  Rebel  community.  It  is  not  for  him 
to  search  the  defunct  laws  of  Louisiana  and  Texas  for  a  guide 
to  his  conduct.  It  is  for  him  to  execute  the  laws  which  he  was 
sent  there  to  administer.  It  is  for  him  to  aid  in  building  up 
civil  governments,  rather  than  to  prepare  himself  to  be  the  Presi- 
dential candidate  of  that  party  which  gave  him  no  sympathy 
when  he  was  gallantly  fighting  the  battles  of  the  country. 

Some  of  our  friends  say,  since  the  President  is  the  chief  obsta- 
cle, remove  him  by  impeachment.  As  the  end  is  more  impor- 
tant than  the  means,  so  is  the  rebuilding  of  law  and  liberty  on 
the  ruins  of  anarchy  and  slavery  more  important  than  the  im- 
peachment of  Andrew  Johnson.  If,  by  placing  the  work  in 
other  hands,  it  can  be  done  more  speedily  than  through  the 
slow  process  of  impeachment,  we  shall  so  much  sooner  end  the 
reign  of  chaos  in  the  South.  Let  no  man  suppose  that,  because 
this  House  did  not  resolve  to  proceed  .with  impeachment,  it 
will  abandon  the  loyal  men  of  the  South  to  the  tender  mercies 
of  Rebels,  or  to  the  insane  policy  of  the  President  and  his 
party. 

Mr.  Speaker,  the  Union  party  will  take  no  step  backward  in 
this  work  of  reconstruction.  The  policy  inaugurated  by  the 
Thirty-ninth  Congress  we  are  now  carrying  out.  The  State  of 
Tennessee  has  already  been  restored  to  its  relations  to  the 
Union.  Alabama  has  prepared  a  constitution,  and  on  the  4th 
of  February  her  loyal  people  will  vote  to  adopt  or  reject  it;  and 
before  the  middle  of  that  month  I  expect  to  see  her  repre- 
sentatives occupying  seats  in  these  halls.  Seven  of  the  Rebel 
States  are  now  holding  conventions  and  framing  constitutions 
of  government  in  pursuance  of  the  laws  of  Congress;  and  in 
the  two  remaining  States,  Florida  and  Texas,  elections  have  been 
ordered,  and  the  people  will  soon  vote  for  or  against  a  conven- 
tion. The  work  is  going  on;  and,  if  there  be  no  adverse  action 
to  thwart   it,  before  another  twelvemonth  we  shall  see  most, 


RECONSTRUCTION.  263 

if  not  all,  of  these  States  completely  restored.  Who  now  is 
opposing  it?  Gentlemen  upon  the  other  side  are  manifestly 
arrayed  with  the  President  in  endeavoring  to  obstruct  the  work 
of  reconstruction ;  and  without  charging  upon  them  Rebel  sym- 
pathies, or  imputing  to  them  any  improper  motives,  I  do  say 
that  their  conduct  is  pleasing  to  every  unrepentant  and  un- 
hanged traitor  in  the  South.  The  whole  mass  of  the  Rebel 
population  are  in  favor  of  obstructing  the  reconstruction  pol- 
icy of  Congress.  There  is  not  a  man  who  went  into  rebellion 
against  the  government,  not  a  guerilla  who  shot  down  our 
wounded  soldiers  in  ambulances,  not  a  man  that  burned  our 
cities  and  steamboats,  not  a  man  that  starved  our  prisoners, 
not  a  man  who  aided  in  the  assassination  of  our  President, 
not  a  Rebel,  from  one  end  of  the  country  to  the  other,  who 
is  not  to-day  in  sympathy  with  this  party  in  Congress  in  its 
attempts  to  obstruct  and  defeat  the  reconstruction  policy  of 
Congress. 

With  such  a  combination  against  us,  does  any  one  suppose 
that  we  can  take  one  step  backward,  —  much  less,  that  we  will 
permit  an  officer  of  our  army  to  fling  back  in  our  faces  his 
contempt  of  the  law,  and  tell  us  what  policy  shall  be  adopt- 
ed? It  was  reported  in  the  public  papers  only  yesterday,  that 
the  Governor  of  Texas  had  informed  General  Hancock  that 
murderers  in  Texas  could  not  be  punished  by  the  civil  law. 
Yet  this  general  sends  back  word  to  the  Governor  of  Texas, 
that  he  docs  not  wish  to  interfere  in  any  civil  matters.  Sir,  he 
was  sent  down  there  for  the  very  purpose  of  interfering  in  such 
matters  as  the  non-punishment  of  murderers. 


The  first  two  paragraphs  of  Mr.  Garfield's  remarks  on  the  bill  admitting 
Georgia  to  representation  in  Congress,  made  in  the  House,  June  24, 
1870,  are  also  given. 

Mr.  Speaker,  —  I  have  been  a  listener  for  the  last  two  years 
to  what  has  been  said  on  the  subject  of  reconstruction,  and  dur- 
ing that  time  have  rarely  taken  a  part  in  these  debates.  We 
have  now  reached  a  critical  period  in  our  legislation,  when  we 
are  called  upon  to  perform  the  final  act,  —  to  complete,  for  bet- 
ter or  for  worse,  the  reconstruction  policy  of  the  government. 


264  RECONSTRUCTION. 

I  have  followed  the  remarks  of  my  colleague  from  Ohio,^  as  well 
as  those  of  other  gentlemen,  and  I  confess  that  any  attempt  at 
reconciling  all  we  have  done  on  the  subject  of  reconstruction  so 
as  to  form  consistent  precedents  for  any  given  theory  of  legis- 
lative action  is,  to  my  mind,  a  failure.  There  are  no  theories 
for  the  management  of  whirlwinds  and  earthquakes.  There  are 
no  precedents  for  any  of  the  great  and  sudden  evils  of  society 
which  are  themselves  unprecedented. 

While  on  the  whole  the  historian  will  be  able  to  trace  a  gen- 
eral line  of  conduct  not  altogether  inconsistent  with  itself,  dur- 
ing the  last  five  or  six  years  of  our  legislation  on  this  subject,  I 
think  he  will  find  many  anomalies  in  the  course  of  that  history. 
For  my  part,  I  have  never  admitted  the  doctrine  of  State  sui- 
cide. I  opposed  that  doctrine  in  1864;  I  opposed  it  again  in 
1866,  at  a  time  when  it  was  popular  here  and  in  the  other  end 
of  the  Capitol ;  and  I  am  glad  to  know  the  settled  policy  of  the 
country  has  at  last  also  condemned  it.  While  we  did  not  as  a 
nation  admit  the  doctrine  that  States,  by  rebellion,  could  go  out 
of  the  Union  and  set  themselves  up  as  independent  States  ex- 
cept by  successful  revolution,  the  nation  nevertheless  held  and 
asserted  that,  under  the  Constitution,  we  had  the  amplest  power 
to  coerce  by  arms,  and  then  to  restore  to  its  place  in  the  Union, 
any  State  that  chose  to  destroy  its  organization,  and  rebel  against 
the  government  of  the  United  States.  In  the  exercise  of  those 
high  constitutional  functions,  we  first  put  down  the  Rebellion, 
and  have  since  been  setting  up,  one  by  one,  the  shattered  pillars 
of  these  States  which  the  Rebellion  attempted  to  demolish,  and 
thus  to  destroy  the  noble  structure  of  the  Union.  It  is  now  in 
our  hands  to  determine  how  Georgia,  the  last  of  the  Rebel 
States,  shall  be  restored  to  her  place  in  the  great  temple  of 
States. 

1  Mr.  Bingham. 


COLLEGE    EDUCATION. 

ADDRESS    DELIVERED    BEFORE    THE    LITERARY  SOCIETIES    OF 

HIRAM    COLLEGE,   HIRAM,   OHIO. 

June  14,  1867. 


In  the  course  of  the  school  year  1866-67,  the  Trustees  of  the  West- 
em  Reserve  Eclectic  Institute,  at  which  Mr.  Garfield  had  prepared  for 
college,  of  which  he  was  Principal  from  1857  to  186 1,  and  of  which  he 
was  now  a  Trustee,  took  steps  to  clothe  the  institution  with  the  powers 
and  responsibilities  of  a  college  with  its  present  name,  Hiram  College. 
The  transition  was  effected  at  the  close  of  that  year.  The  occasion  was 
recognized  by  the  delivery  of  the  following  address.  The  facts  now 
stated  —  the  change  of  the  character  and  name  of  the  school,  and  the 
adoption  of  a  new  course  of  study —  will  explain  some  of  Mr.  Garfield's 
remarks,  especially  towards  the  close  of  the  address. 


GENTLEMEN  OF  the  Literary  Societies,  —  I  con- 
gratulate you  on  the  significant  fact,  that  the  questions 
which  most  vitally  concern  your  personal  work  are  at  this  time 
rapidly  becoming,  indeed  have  already  become,  questions  of 
first  importance  to  the  whole  nation.  In  ordinary  times,  we 
could  scarcely  find  two  subjects  wider  apart  than  the  medita- 
tions of  a  schoolboy,  when  he  asks  what  he  shall  do  with  him- 
self, and  how  he  shall  do  it,  and  the  forecastings  of  a  great 
nation,  when  it  studies  the  laws  of  its  own  life,  and  endeavors  to 
solve  the  problem  of  its  destiny.  But  now  there  is  more  than  a 
resemblance  between  the  nation's  work  and  yours.  If  the  two 
are  not  identical,  they  at  least  bear  the  relation  of  the  whole  to 
a  part. 

The  nation,  having  passed  through  the  childhood  of  its  his- 
tory, and  being  about  to  enter  upon  a  new  life,  based  on  a  fuller 
recognition  of  the  rights  of  manhood,  has  discovered  that  liberty 


266  COLLEGE  EDUCATION, 

can  be  safe  only  when  the  suffrage  is  illuminated  by  education. 
It  is  now  perceived  that  the  life  and  light  of  a  nation  are  insep- 
arable. Hence  the  Federal  government  has  established  a  Na- 
tional Department  of  Education,  for  the  purpose  of  teaching 
young  men  and  women  how  to  be  good  citizens. 

You,  young  gentlemen,  having  passed  the  limits  of  childhood, 
and  being  about  to  enter  the  larger  world  of  manhood,  with  its 
manifold  struggles  and  aspirations,  are  now  confronted  with  the 
question,  "  What  must  I  do  to  fit  myself  most  completely,  not 
for  being  a  citizen  merely,  but  for  being  all  that  doth  become 
a  man  living  in  the  full  light  of  the  Christian  civilization  of 
America?  "  Your  disinthralled  and  victorious  country  asks  you 
to  be  educated  for  her  sake,  and  the  noblest  aspirations  of  your 
being  still  more  imperatively  ask  it  for  your  own  sake.  In  the 
hope  that  I  may  aid  you  in  solving  some  of  these  questions,  I 
have  chosen  for  my  theme  on  this  occasion,  The  Course  of 
Study  in  American  Colleges,  and  its'  Adaptation  to  the  Wants 
of  our  Time. 

Before  examining  any  course  of  study,  we  should  clearly  ap- 
prehend the  objects  to  be  obtained  by  a  liberal  education.  In 
general,  it  may  be  said  that  the  purpose  of  all  study  is  two- 
fold,—  to  discipline  our  faculties,  and  to  acquire  knowledge  for 
the  duties  of  life.  It  is  happily  provided  in  the  constitution  of 
the  human  mind,  that  the  labor  by  which  knowledge  is  acquired 
is  the  only  means  of  disciplining  the  powers.  It  may  be  stated 
as  a  general  rule,  that  if  we  compel  ourselves  to  learn  what  we 
ought  to  know,  and  use  it  when  learned,  our  discipline  will  take 
care  of  itself.  Let  us,  then,  inquire.  What  kinds  of  knowledge 
should  be  the  objects  of  a  liberal  education? 

Without  adopting  in  full  the  classification  of  Herbert  Spen- 
cer,^ it  will  be  sufficiently  comprehensive  for  my  present  pur- 
pose to  name  the  following  kinds  of  knowledge,  stated  in  the 
order  of  their  importance:  — 

First.  That  knowledge  which  is  necessary  for  the  full  devel- 
opment of  our  bodies  and  the  preservation  of  our  health. 

Second.  The  knowledge  of  those  principles  by  which  the 
useful  arts  and  industries  are  carried  on  and  improved. 

Third.  That  knowledge  which  is  necessary  to  a  full  compre- 
hension of  our  rights  and  duties  as  citizens. 

1  Education,  Intellectual,  Moral,  and  Physical,  Chap.  I.,  **  What  Knowledge 
is  of  most  Worth  ? " 


COLLEGE  EDUCATION.  267 

Fourth.  A  knowledge  of  the  intellectual,  moral,  religious, 
and  aesthetic  nature  of  man,  and  his  relations  to  nature  and  civ- 
ilization. 

Fifth.  That  special  and  thorough  knowledge  which  is  requi- 
site for  the  particular  profession  or  pursuit  which  a  man  may 
choose  as  his  life-work  after  he  has  completed  his  college 
studies. 

In  brief,  the  student  should  study  himself,  his  relations  to 
society,  to  nature,  and  to  art;  and  above  all,  in  all,  and  through 
all  these,  he  should  study  the  relations  of  himself,  society,  na- 
ture, and  art,  to  God,  the  author  of  them  all. 

Of  course  it  is  not  possible,  nor  is  it  desirable,  to  confine  the 
course  of  development  exclusively  to  this  order ;  for  truths  are 
so  related  and  correlated  that  no  department  of  the  realm  of 
Truth  is  wholly  isolated.  We  cannot  learn  much  that  pertains 
to  the  industry  of  society,  without  learning  something  of  the 
material  world,  and  the  laws  which  govern  it.  We  cannot  study 
nature  profoundly  without  bringing  ourselves  into  communion 
with  the  spirit  of  art,  which  pervades  and  fills  the  universe.  But 
what  I  suggest  is,  that  we  should  make  the  course  of  study 
conform  generally  to  the  order  here  indicated ;  that  the  student 
shall  first  study  what  he  most  needs  to  know ;  that  the  order  of 
his  needs  shall  be  the  order  of  his  work. 

Now,  it  will  not  be  denied  that,  from  the  day  when  the  child's 
foot  first  presses  the  green  turf  till  the  day  when,  an  old  man, 
he  is  ready  to  be  laid  under  it,  there  is  not  an  hour  in  which  he 
does  not  need  to  know  a  thousand  things  in  relation  to  his 
body,  —  what  he  shall  eat,  what  he  shall  drink,  and  wherewithal 
he  shall  be  clothed.  Unprovided  with  that  instinct  which  en- 
ables the  lower  animals  to  reject  the  noxious  and  select  the 
nutritive,  man  must  learn  even  the  most  primary  truth  that 
ministers  to  his  self-preservation.  If  parents  were  themselves 
sufficiently  educated,  most  of  this  knowledge  might  be  acquired 
at  the  mother's  knee ;  but,  by  the  strangest  perversion  and  mis- 
direction of  the  educational  forces,  these  most  essential  elements 
of  knowledge  are  more  neglected  than  any  other. 

School  committees  would  summarily  dismiss  the  teacher  who 
should  have  the  good  sense  and  courage  to  spend  three  days  of 
each  week  with  her  pupils  in  the  fields  and  woods,  teaching 
them  the  names,  peculiarities,  and  uses  of  rocks,  trees,  plants, 
and  flowers,  and  the  beautiful  story  of  the  animals,  birds,  and 


1 1  ■; 


266 


COLLEGE  EI 


can  be  safe  only  when  the  su 
It  is  now  perceived  that  th 
arable.    Hence  the  Fedcr 
tional  Department  of  i 
young  men  and  woi^ 

You,  young  gcntl* 
and  being  about  t 
manifold  stru$r<'- 
question,   ''VN' 


I ' 


..V,   beauty.     They  will 

...;.   :hat  undefended  and 

iivsical  and  intellectual 

.^    J  Silence,  in  a  vain  attempt 

V  L>rinted  page,  for  six  hours 

,1  he  finished  his  slaughter  of 

.  ,>  jtactice  kills  by  the  savagery 


for  being  n 
a  man  1^^ 
Amcri 
to  lv_ 


\ 


^>*  ■■«. 


V  ^ 


\   s  » 


...^v::cd  to  study?     Besides  the  mass 

..:tv:'i  he  is  compelled  to  memorize,  not 

V.    ».wcrstands,  at  eight  or  ten  years  of 

..  :*'!!j;lish  grammar,  —  one  of  the  most 

.:o   metaphysical  of  studies,    requiring    a 

and  discipline  to  master   it.     Thus  are 

at   worse   than   squandered  —  those   thrice 

>  •  .v»»  '-he  child  is  all  ear  and  eye,  when  its  eager 

.^.,.uu*ie  curiosity,  hungers  and  thirsts  to  know  the 

-w  .k  >\  v»f  the  world  and  its  wonderful  furniture.     We 

X  xuvvt  clamor  by  cramming  its  hungry   mind   with 

^^^      empty,  meaningless  words.     It  asks  for  bread, 

•  a  ^tonc.     It  is  to  me  a  perpetual  wonder  that 

.  ,  X    ^*\e  of  knowledge   survives   the   outrages   of  the 

'^  ,..w.      li  would  be  foreign  to  my  present  purpose  to 

»:;thei  the  subject  of  primary  education ;  but  it  is  wor- 

,  ,       .Mv»knnulest  thought,  for  **  out  of  it  arc  the  issues  of 

I  'KiL  man  will  be  a  benefactor  of  his  race  who  shall  teach 

>,u  iv*  manage  rightly  the  first  years  of  a  child's  education. 

^v,  v».ie»  vleelare  that  no  child  of  mine  shall  ever  be  compelled 

.  x,.:J\  vMK*  hour,  or  to  learn  even  the  English  alphabet,  before 

V  h^i.-*  deposited  under  his  skin  at  least  seven  years  of  muscle 

\\  hat  ate  our  seminaries  and  colleges  accomplishing  in  the 

wax  v»J  teaching  the  laws  of  life  and  physical  well-being?     I 

^hvHild  scarcely  wrong  them  were  I  to  answer,  Nothing,  —  abso- 

Uilclv  n\»thing.     The  few  recitations  which  some  of  the  colleges 

j^^^iiio  in  anatomy  and  physiology  unfold  but  the  alphabet  of 

\h\vie  sciences.     The  emphasis  of  college  culture  does  not  fall 

th**ri*.      I'he  graduate  has  learned  the  Latin  of  the  old  maxim, 

^ms  sana  in  corpore  sano ;  but  how  to  strengthen  the  mind  by 

iV  preservation  of  the  body,  he  has  never  learned.     He  can 

^iJl  you  in  Xenophon's  best  Attic  Greek,  that  Apollo  flayed 


COLLEGE  EDUCATION.  269 

the  unhappy  Marsyas,  and  hanged  up  his  skin  as  a  trophy;  but 
he  has  never  examined  the  wonderful  texture  of  his  own  skin, 
or  the  laws  by  which  he  may  preserve  it.  He  would  blush,  were 
he  to  mistake  the  place  of  a  Greek  accent,  or  put  the  ictus  on 
the  second  syllable  of  ^olus;  but  the  whole  circle  liberalium  ^..f^' 
artiiun,  so  pompously  referred  to  in  his  diploma  of  graduation, 
may  not  have  taught  him,  as  I  can  testify  in  an  instance  person- 
ally known  to  me,  whether  \A\cjg'umtm  is  a  bone,  or  the  humerus 
an  intestine.  Every  hour  of  study  consumes  a  portion  of  his 
muscular  and  vital  force.  Every  tissue  of  his  body  requires  its 
appropriate  nourishment,  the  elements  of  which  are  found  in 
abundance  in  the  various  products  of  nature ;  but  he  has  never 
inquired  where  he  shall  find  the  phosphates  and  carbonates  of 
lime  for  his  bones,  albumen  and  fibrine  for  his  blood,  and 
phosphorus  for  his  brain.  His  chemistry,  mineralogy,  botany, 
anatomy,  and  physiology,  if  thoroughly  studied,  would  give  all 
this  knowledge ;  but  he  has  been  intent  on  things  remote  and 
foreign,  and  has  given  little  heed  to  those  matters  which  so 
nearly  concern  the  chief  functions  of  life.  Yet  the  student 
should  not  be  blamed.  The  great  men  of  history  have  set  him 
the  example.  Copernicus  discovered  and  announced  the  true 
theory  of  the  solar  system  a  hundred  years  before  the  circulation 
of  the  blood  was  known.  Though  from  the  heart  to  the  surface, 
and  from  the  surface  back  to  the  heart  of  every  man  of  the  race, 
some  twenty  pounds  of  blood  had  made  the  circuit  once  every 
three  minutes,  from  the  creation  of  the  first  man,  yet  men  were 
looking  so  steadily  away  from  themselves  that  they  did  not  ob- 
serve the  wonderful  fact.  Man's  habit  of  thought  has  devel- 
oped itself  in  all  the  courses  of  college  study. 

In  the  next  place,  I  inquire,  What  kinds  of  knowledge  are 
necessary  for  carrying  on  and  improving  the  useful  arts  and  in- 
dustries of  civilized  life  ?  I  am  well  aware  of  the  current  notion 
that  these  muscular  arts  should  stay  in  the  fields  and  shops,  and 
not  invade  the  sanctuaries  of  learning.  A  finished  education  is 
supposed  to  consist  mainly  of  literary  culture.  The  story  of  the 
forges  of  the  Cyclops,  where  the  thunderbolts  of  Jove  were 
fashioned,  is  supposed  to  adorn  elegant  scholarship  more  grace- 
fully than  those  sturdy  truths  which  are  preached  to  this  gener- 
ation in  the  wonders  of  the  mine,  in  the  fire  of  the  furnace,  in 
the  clang  of  the  iron-mill,  and  the  other  innumerable  industries 
which,  more  than  all  other  human  agencies,  have  made  our  civil- 


270  COLLEGE  EDUCATION. 

ization  what  it  is,  and  are  destined  to  achieve  wonders  yet  un- 
dreamed of.  This  generation  is  beginning  to  understand  that 
education  should  not  be  forever  divorced  from  industry,  —  that 
the  highest  results  can  be  reached  only  when  science  guides  the 
hand  of  labor.  With  what  eagerness  and  alacrity  is  industry 
seizing  every  truth  of  science,  and  putting  it  in  harness  !  A  few 
years  ago,  Bessemer,  of  England,  studying  the  nice  affinities 
between  carbon  and  the  metals,  discovered  that  a  slight  change 
of  combination  would  produce  a  metal  possessing  the  ductility 
of  iron  and  the  compactness  of  steel,  and  which  would  cost  but 
little  more  than  common  iron.  One  rail  of  this  metal  will  out- 
last fifteen  of  the  iron  rails  now  in  use.  Millions  of  capital  are 
already  invested  to  utilize  this  thought  of  Bessemer,  which  must 
soon  revolutionize  the  iron  manufacture  of  the  world. 

Another  example.  The  late  war  raised  the  price  of  cotton 
and  paper  made  of  cotton  rags.  It  was  found  that  good  paper 
could  be  manufactured  from  the  fibre  of  soft  wood ;  but  it  was 
expensive  and  difficult  to  reduce  the  wood  to  pulp,  without 
chopping  the  fibre  in  pieces.  A  Yankee  mechanic,  who  had 
learned  from  the  science  of  vegetable  anatomy  that  a  billet  of 
wood  is  composed  of  millions  of  hollow  cylinders,  many  of  them 
so  small  that  only  the  microscope  can  reveal  them,  and  having 
learned  also  the  penetrative  and  expansive  power  of  steam,  wed- 
ded these  two  truths  in  an  experiment,  which,  if  exhibited  to 
Socrates,  would  have  been  declared  a  miracle  from  the  gods. 
The  experiment  was  very  simple.  Putting  his  block  of  wood  in 
a  strong  box,  he  forced  into  it  a  volume  of  superheated  steam, 
which  made  its  way  into  the  minutest  pore  and  cell  of  the  wood. 
Then,  through  a  trap-door  suddenly  opened,  the  block  was 
tossed  out.  The  outside  pressure  being  removed,  the  expand- 
ing steam  instantly  burst  every  one  of  the  million  tubes ;  every 
vegetable  flue  collapsed,  and  his  block  of  wood  lay  before  him  a 
mass  of  fleecy  fibre,  more  delicate  than  the  hand  of  man  could 
make  it. 

Machinery  is  the  chief  implement  with  which  civilization  does 
its  work ;  but  the  science  of  mechanics  is  impossible  without 
mathematics.  But  for  her  mineral  resources  England  would  be 
only  the  hunting-park  of  Europe,  and  it  is  believed  that  her  day 
of  greatness  will  terminate  when  her  coal-fields  are. exhausted. 
Our  mineral  wealth  is  a  thousand  times  greater  than  hers ;  and 
yet,  without  the  knowledge  of  geology,  mineralogy,  metallurgy. 


COLLEGE  EDUCATION.  271 

and  chemistry,  our  mines  can  be  of  but  little  value.  Without 
a  knowledge  of  astronomy,  commerce  on  the  sea  is  impossible ; 
and  now,  at  last,  it  is  being  discovered  that  the  greatest  of  all 
our  industries,  agriculture,  in  which  three  fourths  of  all  our 
population  are  engaged,  must  call  science  to  its  aid,  if  it  would 
keep  up  with  the  demands  of  civilization.  I  need  not  enumer- 
ate the  extent  and  variety  of  knowledge,  scientific  and  practical, 
which  a  farmer  needs  in  order  to  reach  the  full  height  and 
scope  of  his  noble  calling. 

And  what  has  our  American  system  of  education  done  for 
this  controlling  majority  of  the  people?  I  can  best  answer  that 
question  with  a  single  fact.  Notwithstanding  there  are  in  the 
United  States  one  hundred  and  twenty  thousand  common 
schools  and  seven  thousand  academies  and  seminaries,  —  not- 
withstanding there  are  two  hundred  and  seventy-five  colleges 
where  young  men  may  be  graduated  as  bachelors  and  masters 
of  the  liberal  arts,  —  yet  in  all  these  the  people  of  the  United 
States  have  found  so  little  being  done  or  likely  to  be  done,  to 
educate  men  for  the  work  of  agriculture,  that  they  have  de- 
manded, and  at  last  have  secured  from  their  political  servants  in 
Congress,  an  appropriation  sufficient  to  build  and  maintain,  in 
each  State  of  the  Union,  a  college  for  the  education  of  farm- 
ers. This  great  outlay  would  have  .been  totally  unnecessary, 
but  for  the  stupid  and  criminal  neglect  of  college,  academic, 
and  common-school  boards  of  education  to  furnish  that  which 
the  wants  of  the  people  require.  The  scholar  and  the  worker 
must  join  hands,  if  both  would  be  successful. 

I  next  ask,  What  studies  arc  necessary  to  teach  our  young 
men  and  women  the  history  and  spirit  of  our  government,  and 
their  rights  and  duties  as  citizens?  There  is  not  now,  and 
there  never  was  on  this  earth,  a  people  who  have  had  so  many 
and  weighty  reasons  for  loving  their  country,  and  thanking 
God  for  the  blessings  of  civil  and  religious  liberty,  as  our  own. 
And  yet  seven  years  ago  there  was  probably  less  strong,  ear- 
nest, open  love  of  country  in  the  United  States  than  in  any 
other  nation  of  Christendom.  It  is  true  that  the  gulf  of  anarchy 
and  ruin  into  which  treason  threatened  to  plunge  us  startled 
the  nation  as  by  an  electric  shock,  and  galvanized  into  life  its 
dormant  and  dying  patriotism.  But  how  came  it  dormant  and 
dying?  I  do  not  hesitate  to  affirm,  that  one  of  the  chief  causes 
was  our  defective  system  of  education.     Seven  years  ago  there 


2/2  COLLEGE   EDUCATION, 

was  scarcely  an  American  college  in  which  more  than  four 
weeks  out  of  the  four  years'  course  was  devoted  to  studying 
the  government  and  history  of  the  United  States.  For  this* 
feature  of  our  educational  system  I  have  neither  respect  nor  tol- 
eration. It  is  far  inferior  to  that  of  Persia  three  thousand  years 
ago.  The  uncultivated  tribes  of  Greece,  Rome,  Libya,  and  Ger- 
many surpassed  us  in  this  respect.  Grecian  children  were  taught 
to  reverence  and  emulate  the  virtues  of  their  ancestors.  Our 
educational  forces  are  so  wielded  as  to  teach  our  children  to  ad- 
mire most  that  which  is  foreign,  and  fabulous,  and  dead.  I  have 
recently  examined  the  catalogue  of  a  leading  New  England  col- 
lege, in  which  the  geography  and  history  of  Greece  and  Rome 
are  required  to  be  studied  five  terms ;  but  neither  the  history 
nor  the  geography  of  the  United  States  is  named  in  the  college 
course,  or  required  as  a  condition  of  admission.  The  American 
child  must  know  all  the  classic  rivers,  from  the  Scamander  to 
the  yellow  Tiber ;  must  tell  you  the  length  of  the  Appian  Way, 
and  of  the  canal  over  which  Horace  and  Virgil  sailed  on  their 
journey  to  Brundusium ;  but  he  may  be  crowned  with  bacca- 
laureate honors  without  having  heard,  since  his  first  moment 
of  Freshman  life,  one  word  concerning  the  one  hundred  and 
twenty-two  thousand  miles  of  coast  and  river  navigation,  the  six 
thousand  miles  of  canal,  ^nd  the  thirty-five  thousand  miles  of 
railroad,  which  indicate  both  the  prosperity  and  the  possibilities 
of  his  own  country. 

It  is  well  to  know  the  history  of  those  magnificent  nations 
whose  origin  is  lost  in  fable,  and  whose  epitaphs  were  written  a 
thousand  years  ago ;  but  if  wc  cannot  know  both,  it  is  far  bet- 
ter to  study  the  history  of  our  own  nation,  whose  origin  we  can 
trace  to  the  freest  and  noblest  aspirations  of  the  human  heart, — 
a  nation  that  was  formed  from  the  hardiest,  purest,  and  most 
enduring  elements  of  European  civilization,  —  a  nation  that,  by 
its  faith  and  courage,  has  dared  and  accomplished  more  for  the 
human  race  in  a  single  century  than  Europe  accomplished  in 
the  first  thousand  years  of  the  Christian  era. 

The  New  England  township  was  the  type  after  which  our 
Federal  government  was  modelled  ;  yet  it  would  be  rare  to  find 
a  college  student  who  can  make  a  comprehensive  and  intelligent 
statement  of  the  municipal  organization  of  the  township  in  which 
he  lives,  and  tell  you  by  what  officers  its  legislative,  judicial,  and 
executive    functions   are    administered.     One    half  of  the  time 


COLLEGE  EDUCATION.  273 

which  is  now  almost  wholly  wasted  in  district  schools  on  Eng- 
lish grammar,  attempted  at  too  early  an  age,  would  be  sufficient 
to  teach  our  children  to  love  the  republic,  and  to  become  its 
loyal  and  life-long  supporters.  After  the  bloody  baptism  from 
which  the  nation  has  arisen  to  a  higher  and  nobler  life,  if  this 
shameful  defect  in  our  system  of  education  be  not  speedily 
remedied,  wc  shall  deserve  the  infinite  contempt  of  future  gen- 
erations. I  insist  that  it  should  be  made  an  indispensable  con- 
dition of  graduation  in  every  American  college,  that  the  student 
must  understand  the  history  of  this  continent  since  its  discovery 
by  Europeans ;  the  origin  and  history  of  the  United  States,  its 
constitution  of  government,  the  struggles  through  which  it  has 
passed,  and  the  rights  and  duties  of  citizens  who  are  to  deter- 
mine its  destiny  and  share  its  glory. 

I  Having^thus  gained  the  knowledge  which  is  necessary  to  life,. 
healthy  industry,  and  citizenship,  the  student]  is  prepared  to 
enter  a  wider  and  grander  field  of  thought.  It  he  desires  that 
large  and  liberal  culture  which  will  call  into  activity  all  his  pow- 
ers, and  make  the  most  of  the  material  God  has  given  him,  he 
^ust  study  deeply  and  earnestly  the  intellectual,  the  moral,  the 
religious,  and  the  aesthetic  nature  of  man]  —  his  relations  to  na- 
ture, to  civilization  past  and  present,  and,  above  all,  hi.s  rela- 
tions to  God.  These  should  occupy  nearly,  if  not  fully,  half 
the  time  of  his  college  course.  In  connection  with  the  philoso- 
phy of  the  mind,  he  should  study  logic,  the  pure  mathematics, 
and  the  general  laws  of  thought.  In  connection  with  moral 
philosophy,  he  should  study  political  and  social  ethics,  a  science 
so  little  known  cither  in  colleges  or  congresses.  Prominent 
among  all  the  rest  should  be  his  study  of  the  wonderful  history 
of  the  human  race,  in  its  slow  and  toilsome  march  across  the 
centuries;  — now  buried  in  ignorance,  superstition,  and  crime; 
now  rising  to  the  sublimity  of  heroism,  and  catching  a  glimpse 
of  a  better  destiny;  now  turning  remorselessly  away  from,  and 
leaving  to  perish,  empires  and  civilizations  in  which  it  had  in- 
vested its  faith  and  courage  and  boundless  energy  for  a  thou- 
sand years,  and  plunging  into  the  forests  of  Germany,  Gaul,  and 
Britain,  to  build  for  itself  new  empires,  better  fitted  for  its  new 
aspirations;  and  at  last  crossing  three  thousand  miles  of  un- 
known sea,  anjd  building  in  the  wilderness  of  a  new  hemisphere 
its  latest  and  proudest  monuments.  To  know  this  as  it  ought 
to  be  known  requires  not  only  a  knowledge  of  general  history, 

VOL.  I.  18 


274  COLLEGE  EDUCATION. 

but  a  thorough  understanding  of  such  works  as  Guizot's  "  His- 
tory of  Civilization  "  and  Draper's  **  Intellectual  Development  of 
Europe,"  and  also  the  rich  literature  of  ancient  and  modern  na- 
tions. Of  course,  our  colleges  cannot  be  expected  to  lead  the 
student  through  all  the  paths  of  this  great  field  of  learning ;  but 
they  should  at  least  point  out  its  boundaries,  and  let  him  taste 
a  few  clusters  from  its  richest  vines. 

Finally,  in  rounding  up  the  measure  of  his  work,  the  student 
should  crown  his  education  with  that  aesthetic  culture  which 
will  unfold  to  him  the  delights  of  nature  and  art,  and  make  his 
mind  and  heart  a  fit  temple  where  the  immortal  spirit  of  Beauty 
may  dwell  forever.  While  acquiring  this  kind  of  knowledge, 
the  student  is  on  a  perpetual  voyage  of  discovery,  —  searching 
what  he  is  and  what  he  may  become,  how  he  is  related  to  the 
universe,  and  how  the  harmonies  of  the  outer  world  respond  to 
the  voice  within  him.  It  is  in  this  range  of  study  that  he  learns 
most  fully  his  own  tastes  and  aptitudes,  and  generally  deter- 
mines what  his  work  in  life  shall  be. 

The  last  item  in  the  classification  I  have  suggested,  that  spe- 
cial knowledge  which  is  necessary  to  fit  a  man  for  the  particular 
profession  or  calling  he  may  adopt,  I  cannot  discuss  here,  as  it 
lies  outside  the  field  of  general  education ;  but  I  will  make  one 
suggestion  to  the  young  gentlemen  before  mc  who  intend  to 
choose,  as  their  life-work,  some  one  of  the  learned  professions. 
You  will  commit  a  fatal  mistake  if  you  make  only  the  same 
preparations  which  your  predecessors  made  fifty,  or  even  ten 
years  ago.  Each  generation  must  have  a  higher  cultivation  than 
the  preceding  one,  in  order  to  be  equally  successful ;  and  each 
man  must  be  educated  for  his  own  times.  If  you  become  a 
lawyer,  you  must  remember  that  the  science  of  law  is  not. fixed, 
like  geometry,  but  is  a  growth  which  keeps  pace  with  the  pro- 
gress of  society.  The  developments  of  the  late  war  will  make 
it  necessary  to  rewrite  many  of  the  leading  chapters  of  irttcr- 
national  and  maritime  law.  The  destruction  of  slavery  and  the 
enfranchisement  of  four  millions  of  colored  men  will  almost  rev- 
olutionize American  jurisprudence.  If  Webster  were  now  at 
the  bar,  in  the  full  glory  of  his  strength,  he  would  be  compelled 
largely  to  reconstruct  the  fabric  of  his  legal  learning.  Similar 
changes  are  occurring  both  in  the  medical  and  military  profes- 
sions. Ten  years  hence  the  young  surgeon  will  hardly  venture 
to  open  an  ofiice  till  he  has  studied  thoroughly  the  medical  and 


COLLEGE  EDUCATION.  27s 

surgical  history  of  the  late  war.  After  our  experience  at  Sum- 
ter and  Wagner,  no  nation  will  again  build  fortifications  of  costly 
masonry ;  for  they  have  learned  that  earthworks  are  not  only 
cheaper,  but  a  better  defence  against  artillery.  The  text-books 
on  military  engineering  must  be  rewritten.  Our  Spencer  rifle 
and  the  Prussian  needle-gun  have  revolutionized  both  the  man- 
ufacture of  arms  and  the  manual  of  arms ;  and  no  great  battle 
will  ever  again  be  fought  with  muzzle-loading  muskets.  Napo- 
leon, at  the  head  of  his  Old  Guard,  could  to-day  win  no  Auster- 
litz  till  he  had  read  the  military  history  of  the  last  six  years. 

It  may  perhaps  be  thought  that  the  suggestion  I  have  made 
concerning  the  professions  will  not  apply  to  the  work  of  the 
Christian  minister,  whose  principal  text-book  is  a  divine  and 
perfect  revelation ;  but,  in  my  judgment,  the  remark  applies  to 
the  clerical  profession  with  even  more  force  than  to  any  other. 
There  is  no  department  of  his  duties  in  which  he  does  not  need 
the  fullest  and  the  latest  knowledge.  He  is  pledged  to  the 
defence  of  revelation  and  religion ;  but  it  will  not  avail  him  to 
be  able  to  answer  the  objections  of  Hume  and  Voltaire.  The 
arguments  of  Paley  were  not  written  to  answer  the  scepticism 
of  to-day.  His  **  Natural  Theology  "  is  now  less  valuable  than 
Hugh  Miller's  "  Footprints  of  the  Creator,"  or  Guyot's  lectures 
on  **  Earth  and  Man."  The  men  and  women  of  to-day  know 
but  little,  and  care  less,  about  the  thousand  abstract  questions 
of  polemic  theology  which  puzzled  the  heads  and  wearied  the 
hearts  of  our  Puritan  fathers  and  mothers.  That  minister  will 
make,  and  deserves  to  make,  a  miserable  failure,  who  attempts 
to  feed  hungry  hearts  on  the  dead  dogmas  of  the  past.  More 
than  that  of  any  other  man  it  is  his  duty  to  march  abreast  of 
the  advanced  thinkers  of  his  time,  and  be,  not  only  a  learner,  but 
a  teacher  of  its  science,  its  literature,  and  its  criticism.  But  I 
return  to  the  main  question  before  me. 

Having  endeavored  to  state  what  kinds  of  knowledge  should 
be  the  objects  of  a  liberal  education,  I  shall  next  inquire  how 
well  the  course  of  study  in  American  colleges  is  adapted  to  the 
attainment  of  these  objects.  In  discussing  this  question,  I  do 
not  forget  that  he  is  deemed  a  rash  and  imprudent  man  who 
invades  with  suggestions  of  change  these  venerable  sanctuaries 
of  learning.  Let  him  venture  to  suggest  that  much  of  the  wis- 
dom there  taught  is  foolishness,  and  he  may  hear  from  the 
college  chapels  of  the  land,  in  good  Virgilian  hexameter,  the 


276  COLLEGE  EDUCATION, 

warning  cry,  "Procul,  O  procul  este,  profani !  "  Happy  for  him 
if  the  whole  body  of  alumni  do  not  with  equal  pedantry  re- 
spond in  Horatian  verse,  "  Fenum  habet  in  cornu ;  longe  fuge." 
But  I  protest  that  a  friend  of  American  education  may  suggest 
changes  in  our  college  studies  without  committing  profanation, 
or  carrying  hay  on  his  horns.  Our  colleges  have  done,  and  are 
doing,  a  noble  work,  for  which  they  deserve  the  thanks  of  the 
nation ;  but  he  is  not  their  enemy  who  suggests  that  they  ought 
to  do  much  better.  As  an  alumnus  of  one  which  I  shall  always 
reverence,  and  as  a  friend  of  all,  I  shall  venture  to  discuss  the 
work  they  are  doing. 

I  have  examined  the  catalogues  of  some  twenty  Eastern, 
Western,  and  Southern  colleges,  and  find  the  subjects  taught, 
and  the  relative  time  given  to  each,  about  the  same  in  all.  The 
chief  difference  is  in  the  quantity  of  work  required.  I  will  take 
Harvard  as  a  representative,  it  being  the  oldest  of  our  colleges, 
and  certainly  requiring  as  much  study  as  any  other.  Remem- 
bering that  the  standard  by  which  we  measure  a  student's 
work  for  one  day  is  three  recitations  of  one  hour  each,  and 
that  his  year  usually  consists  of  three  terms  of  thirteen  or 
fourteen  weeks  each,  for  convenience'  sake  I  will  divide  the 
work  required  to  admit  him  to  college,  and  after  four  years 
to  graduate  him,  into  two  classes:  first,  that  which  belongs 
to  the  study  of  Latin  and  Greek;  and,  second,  that  which 
docs  not. 

Now,  from  the  annual  Catalogue  of  Harvard  for  1866-67,  I 
find  that  the  candidate  for  admission  to  the  Freshman  class 
must  be  examined  in  eight  terms'  study  in  Latin,  six  in  Greek, 
one  in  ancient  geography,  one  in  Grecian  history,  and  one  in 
Roman  history,  which  make  seventeen  terms  in  the  studies  of 
the  first  class.  Under  the  second  class  the  candidate  is  required 
to  be  examined  in  reading,  in  common-school  arithmetic  and 
geography,  in  one  term's  study  of  algebra,  and  one  term  of 
geometry.  English  grammar  is  not  mentioned.  Thus,  after 
completing  the  elementary  branches  which  are  taught  in  all  our 
common  schools,  it  requires  about  two  years  and  a  half  of  study 
to  enter  the  college ;  and  of  that  study  seventeen  parts  are  de- 
voted to  the  language,  history,  and  geography  of  Greece  and 
Rome,  and  two  parts  to  all  other  subjects ! 

Reducing  the  Harvard  year  to  the  usual  division  of  three 
terms,  the  analysis  of  the  work  will  be  found  as  follows :   not 


Lt 


COLLEGE  EDUCATION.  277 

less  than  nine  terms  of  Latin  (there  may  be  twelve  if  the  stu- 
dent chooses  it)  ;  not  less  than  six  terms  of  Greek  (but  twelve 
if  he  chooses  it)  ;  and  three  terms  of  Roman  history  if  the  stu- 
dent elects  it.  With  the  average  of  three  recitations  per  day, 
and  three  terms  per  year,  we  may  say  that  the  whole  work  of 
college  study  consists  of  thirty-six  parts.  Not  less  than  fifteen 
of  these  must  be  devoted  to  Latin  and  Greek,  and  not  more 
than  twenty-one  to  all  other  subjects.  If  the  student  chooses, 
he  may  devote  twenty-four  parts  to  Latin  and  Greek,  and  twelve 
to  all  other  subjects.  Taking  the  whole  six  and  a  half  years  of 
preparatory  and  college  study,  we  find  that,  to  earn  a  bachelor's 
diploma  at  Harvard,  a  young  man,  after  leaving  the  district 
school,  must  devote  four  sevenths  of  all  his  labor  to  Greece 
and  Rome. 

Now,  what  do  wc  find  in  our  second,  or  unclassical  list?  It 
is  chiefly  remarkable  for  what  it  does  not  contain.  In  the  whole 
programme  of  study,  lectures  included,  no  mention  whatever  is 
made  of  physical  geography,  of  anatomy,  physiology,  or  the 
general  history  of  the  United  States.  A  few  weeks  of  the  Sen- 
ior year  given  to  Guizot,  the  history  of  the  Federal  Constitu- 
tion, and  a  lecture  on  general  history  once  a  week  during  half 
that  year,  furnish  all  that  the  graduate  of  Harvard  is  required 
to  know  of  his  own  country,  and  the  living  nations  of  the  earth. 
He  must  apply  years  of  arduous  labor  to  the  history,  oratory, 
and  poetry  of  Greece  and  Rome ;  but  he  is  not  required  to  cull 
a  single  flower  from  the  rich  fields  of  our  own  literature.  Eng- 
lish literature  is  not  named  in  the  curriculum,  except  that  the 
student  may,  if  he  chooses,  attend  a  few  general  lectures  on 
modern  literature. 

Such  are  some  of  the  facts  in  reference  to  the  educational 
work  of  our  most  venerable  college,  where  there  is  probably 
concentrated  more  general  and  special  culture  than  at  any  other 
in  America.  I  think  it  probable,  that  in  some  of  the  colleges 
the  proportion  of  Latin  and  Greek  to  other  studies  may  be  less ; 
but  I  believe  that  in  none  of  them  is  the  preparatory  and  col- 
lege work  devoted  to  these  two  languages  less  than  half  of  all 
the  work  required.  Now,  the  bare  statement  of  this  fact  should 
challenge,  and  must  challenge,  the  attention  of  every  thoughtful 
man  in  the  nation.  No  wonder  that  men  are  demanding,  with 
an  earnestness  that  will  not  be  repressed,  to  know  how  it  hap- 
pens, and  why  it  happens,  that,  placing  in  one  end  of  the  balance 


278  COLLEGE  EDUCATION, 

all  the  mathematical  studies,  all  the  physical  sciences  in  their  re- 
cent rapid  developments,  all  the  study  of  the  human  mind  and  the 
laws  of  thought,  all  the  principles  of  political  economy  and  social 
science  which  underlie  the  commerce  and  industry,  and  shape 
the  legislation  of  nations,  the  history  of  our  own  nation,  its  con- 
stitution of  government,  and  its  great  industrial  interests,  all  the 
literature  and  history  of  modern  civilization,  — placing  all  this, 
I  say,  in  one  end  of  the  balance,  they  kick  the  beam  when 
Greece  and  Rome  are  placed  in  the  other.  I  hasten  to  say  that 
I  make  no  attack  upon  the  study  of  these  noble  languages  as 
an  important  and  necessary  part  of  a  liberal  education.  I  have 
no  sympathy  with  that  sentiment  which  would  drive  them  from 
academy  and  college,  as  a  part  of  the  dead  past  that  should 
bury  its  dead.  It  is  Xki^  proportion  of  the  work  given  to  them  of 
which  I  complain. 

These  studies  hold  their  relative  rank  in  obedience  to  the 
tyranny  of  custom.  Each  new  college  is  modelled  after  the 
older  ones,  and  all  the  American  colleges  have  been  patterned 
on  an  humble  scale  after  the  universities  of  England.  The 
prominence  given  to  Latin  and  Greek  at  the  founding  of  these 
universities  was  a  matter  of  inexorable  necessity.  The  continu- 
ance of  the  same,  or  an>^vhcre  near  the  same,  relative  promi- 
nence to-day,  is  both  unnecessary  and  indefensible.  I  appeal  to 
history  for  the  proof  of  these  assertions. 

From  the  close  of  the  fifth  century  we  date  the  beginning  of 
those  dark  ages  which  enveloped  the  whole  world  for  a  thou- 
sand years.  The  human  race  seemed  stricken  with  intellectual 
paralysis.  The  noble  language  of  the  Caesars,  corrupted  by  a 
hundred  barbarous  dialects,  ceased  to  be  a  living  tongue  long 
before  the  modern  languages  of  Europe  had  been  reduced  to 
writing.  In  Italy  the  Latin  died  in  the  tenth  century;  but  the 
oldest  document  known  to  exist  in  Italian  was  not  written  till 
the  year  1200.  Italian  did  not  really  take  its  place  in  the  family 
of  written  languages  till  a  century  later,  when  it  was  crystallized 
into  form  and  made  immortal  by  the  genius  of  Dante  and  Pe- 
trarch. The  Spanish  was  not  a  written  language  till  the  year 
1200,  and  was  scarcely  known  to  Europe  till  Cervantes  con- 
vulsed the  world  with  laughter  in  1605.  The  Latin  ceased  to 
be  spoken  by  the  people  of  France  in  the  tenth  century,  and 
French  was  not  a  written  language  till  the  beginning  of  the 
fourteenth  century.      Pascal,  who  died   in    1662,  is  called  the 


COLLEGE  EDUCATION,  279 

father  of  modern  French  prose.  The  German,  as  a  literary 
language,  dates  from  Luther,  who  died  in  1546.  It  was  one  of 
his  mortal  sins  against  Rome,  that  he  translated  the  Bible  into 
the  uncouth  and  vulgar  tongue  of  Germany. 

Our  own  language  is  also  of  recent  origin.  Richard  I.  of 
England,  who  died  in  1199,  never  spoke  a  word  of  English  in 
his  life.  Our  mother  tongue  was  never  heard  in  an  English 
court  of  justice  till  1362.  The  statutes  of  England  were  not 
written  in  English  till  three  years  before  Columbus  landed  in 
the  New  World.  No  philologist  dates  modern  English  farther 
back  than  1500.  Sir  Thomas  More,  the  author  of  **  Utopia," 
who  died  in  1535,  was  the  father  of  English  prose. 

The  dark  ages  were  the  sleep  of  the  world,  while  the  lan- 
guages of  the  modern  world  were  being  born  out  of  chaos. 
The  first  glimmer  of  dawn  was  in  the  tA\'elfth  century,  when 
in  Paris,  Oxford,  and  other  parts  of  Europe,  universities  were 
established.  The  fifteenth  century  was  spent  in  saving  the  rem- 
nants of  classic  learning  which  had  been  locked  up  in  the  cells 
of  monks,  —  the  Greek  at  Constantinople,  and  the  Latin  in  the 
cloisters  of  Western  Europe. 

During  the  first  three  hundred  years  of  the  life  of  the  older 
universities,  it  is  almost  literally  true,  that  no  modern  tongue 
had  become  a  written  language.  The  learning  of  Europe  was 
in  Latin  and  Greek.  In  order  to  study  either  science  or  litera- 
ture, these  languages  must  first  be  learned.  European  writers 
continued  to  use  Latin  long  after  the  modern  languages  were 
fully  established.  Even  Milton's  great  "  Defence  of  the  People 
of  England,"  which  appeared  in  165 1,  was  written  in  Latin,  —  as 
were  also  the  **  Principia,"  and  other  scientific  works  of  New- 
ton, who  died  in  1727.  The  pride  of  learned  corporations,  the 
spirit  of  exclusivencss  among  learned  men,  and  their  want  of 
sympathy  with  the  mass  of  the  people,  united  to  maintain  Latin 
as  the  language  of  learning  long  after  its  use  ceased  to  be  de- 
fensible. 

Now,  mark  the  contrast  between  the  objects  and  demands  of 
education  when  the  European  universities  were  founded,  —  or 
even  when  Har\'ard  was  founded,  —  and  its  demands  at  the 
present  time.  We  have  a  family  of  modern  languages  almost 
equal  in  force  and  perfection  to  the  classic  tongues,  and  a 
modern  literature,  which,  if  less  perfect  than  the  ancient  in  aes- 
thetic form,  is  immeasurably  richer  in  truth,  and  is  filled  with 


28o  COLLEGE   EDUCATION. 

the  noblest  and  bravest  thoughts  of  the  world.  When  the  uni- 
versities were  founded,  modern  science  had  not  been  born. 
Scarcely  a  generation  has  passed  since  then,  without  adding 
some  new  science  to  the  circle  of  knowledge.  As  late  as  1809, 
the  Edinburgh  Review  declared  that  **  lectures  upon  political 
economy  would  be  discouraged  in  Oxford,  probably  despised, 
probably  not  permitted."  At  a  much  later  date,  there  was  no 
text-book  in  the  United  States  on  that  subject.  The  claims  of 
Latin  and  Greek  to  the  chief  place  in  the  curriculum  have  been 
gradually  growing  less,  and  the  importance  of  other  knowledge 
has  been  constantly  increasing ;  but  the  colleges  have  generally 
opposed  all  innovations,'  and  still  cling  to  the  old  ways  with 
stubborn  conservatism.  Some  concessions,  however,  have  been 
made  to  the  necessities  of  the  times,  both  in  Europe  and  Amer- 
ica. Harvard  would  hardly  venture  to  enforce  its  law  (which 
prevailed  long  after  Cotton  Mather's  day)  forbidding  its  students 
to  speak  English  within  the  college  limits,  under  any  pretext 
whatever ;  and  British  Cantabs  have  had  their  task  of  compos- 
ing hexameters  in  bad  Latin  reduced  by  a  few  thousand  verses 
during  the  last  century. 

It  costs  me  a  struggle  to  say  anything  on  this  subject  which 
may  be  regarded  with  favor  by  those  who  would  reject  the 
classics  altogether,  for  I  have  read  them  and  taught  them  with 
a  pleasure  and  relish  which  few  other  pursuits  have  ever  afford- 
ed me;  but  I  am  persuaded  that  their  supporters  must  soon 
submit  to  a  readjustment  of  their  relations  to  college  study,  or 
they  may  be  driven  from  the  course  altogether.  There  are  most 
weighty  reasons  why  Latin  and  Greek  should  be  retained  as 
part  of  a  liberal  education.  He  who  would  study  our  own  lan- 
guage profoundly  must  not  forget  that  nearly  thirty  per  cent 
of  its  words  are  of  Latin  origin,  —  that  the  study  of  Latin  is  the 
study  of  universal  grammar,  —  that  it  renders  the  acquisition  of 
any  modern  language  an  easy  task,  and  is  indispensable  to 
the  teacher  of  language  and  literature,  and  to  other  profes- 
sional men.  Greek  is,  perhaps,  the  most  perfect  instrument  of 
thought  ever  invented  by  man,  and  its  literature  has  never  been 
equalled  in  purity  of  style  and  boldness  of  expression.  As  a 
means  of  intellectual  discipline,  its  value  can  hardly  be  over- 
estimated. To  take  a  long  and  complicated  sentence  in  Greek, 
to  study  each  word  in  its  meanings,  inflections,  and  relations, 
and  to  build  up  in  the  mind,  out  of  these  polished  materials,  a 


COLLEGE  EDUCATION.  281 

sentence  perfect  as  a  temple,  and  filled  with  Greek  thought 
which  has  dwelt  there  two  thousand  years,  is  almost  an  act 
of  creation :  it  calls  into  activity  all  the  faculties  of  the  mind. 
That  the  Christian  oracles  have  come  down  to  us  in  Greek, 
will  make  Greek  scholars  forever  a  necessity. 

These  studies,  then,  should  not  be  neglected:  they  should 
neither  devour  nor  be  devoured.  I  insist  they  can  be  made 
more  valuable,  and  at  the  same  time  less  prominent,  than  they 
now  are.  A  large  part  of  the  labor  now  bestowed  upon  them 
is  not  devoted  to  learning  the  genius  and  spirit  of  the  lan- 
guage, but  is  more  than  wasted  on  pedantic  trifles.  In  1809 
Sydney  Smith  lashed  this  trifling  as  it  deserves  in  the  Edin- 
burgh Review.     Speaking  of  classical  Englishmen,  he  says :  — 

"Their  minds  have  been  so  completely  possessed  by  exaggerated 
notions  of  classical  learning,  that  they  have  not  been  able,  in  the  great 
school  of  the  world,  to  form  any  other  notion  of  real  greatness.  Attend, 
too,  to  the  public  feelings ;  look  to  all  the  terms  of  applause.  A  learned 
man  !  a  scholar  !  a  man  of  erudition  !  Upon  whom  are  these  epithets 
of  approbation  bestowed  ?  Are  they  given  to  men  acquainted  with  the 
science  of  government,  thoroughly  masters  of  the  geographical  and  com- 
mercial relations  of  Europe  ?  to  men  who  know  the  properties  of  bodies 
and  their  action  upon  each  other  ?  No  :  this  is  not  learning ;  it  is  chem- 
istry, or  political  economy,  not  learning.  The  distinguishing  abstract 
term,  the  epithet  of  scholar,  is  reserved  for  him  who  writes  on  the  -^olic 
reduplication,  and  is  familiar  with  the  Sylburgian  method  of  arranging 

defectives  in  w  and  /xi His  object  [the  young  Englishman's]  is 

not  to  reason,  to  imagine,  or  to  invent,  but  to  conjugate,  decline,  and 
derive.  The  situations  of  imaginary  glory  which  he  draws  for  himself 
are  the  detection  of  an  anapest  in  the  wrong  place,  or  the  restoration  of 
a  dative  case  which  Cranzius  had  passed  over  and  the  never-dying  Er- 
nesti  failed  to  observe.  If  a  young  classic  of  this  kind  were  to  meet  the 
greatest  chemist,  or  the  greatest  mechanician,  or  the  most  profound  po- 
litical economist  of  his  time,  in  company  with  the  greatest  Greek  scholar, 
would  the  slightest  comparison  between  them  ever  come  across  his  mind  ? 
Would  he  ever  dream  that  such  men  as  Adam  Smith  and  Lavoisier  were 
equal  in  dignity  of  understanding  to,  or  of  the  same  utility  as,  Bentley  or 
Heyne?  We  are  inclined  to  think  that  the  feeling  excited  would  be 
a  good  deal  like  that  which  was  expressed  by  Dr.  George  about  the 
praises  of  the  great  king  of  Prussia,  who  entertained  considerable  doubts 
whether  the  king,  with  all  his  victories,  knew  how  to  conjugate  a  Greek 
verb  in  /ai."  ^ 

1  The  Works  of  the  Rev.  Sydney  Smith,  (Boston,  1856,)  p.  75. 


282  COLLEGE  EDUCATION. 

He  concludes  another  article,^  written  in  1826,  with  these 
words :  "  If  there  is  anything  which  fills  reflecting  men  with 
melancholy  and  regret,  it  is  the  waste  of  mortal  time,  parental 
money,  and  puerile  happiness,  in  the  present  method  of  pur- 
suing Latin  and  Greek." 

To  write  verse  in  these  languages ;  to  study  elaborate  theories 
of  the  Greek  accent,  and  the  ancient  pronunciation  of  both 
Greek  and  Latin,  which  no  one  can  ever  know  he  has  discov- 
ered, and  which  would  be  utterly  valueless  if  he  did  discover 
it;    to  toil  over   the  innumerable  exceptions   to  the  arbitrary 
rules  of  poetic  quantity,  which  few  succeed   in  learning,  and 
none  remember,  —  these,  and  a  thousand  other  similar  things 
which  crowd  the  pages  of  Zumpt  and  Kiihner,  no  more  con- 
stitute a  knowledge  of  the  spirit  and  genius  of  the  Greek  and 
Latin  languages,  than  counting  the  number  of  threads  to  the 
square  inch  in  a  man's  coat  and  the  number  of  pegs  in  his 
boots    makes  us    acquainted   with  his    moral    and    intellectual 
character.     The  greatest  literary  monuments  of  Greece  existed 
hundreds  of  years   before  the  science  of  grammar  was  born. 
Plato  and  Thucydides  had  a  tolerable   acquaintance  with  the 
Greek  language ;  but  Crosby  goes  far  beyond  their  depth.    Our 
colleges  should  require  a  student  to  understand  thoroughly  the 
structure,  idioms,  and  spirit  of  these  languages,  and  to  be  able, 
by  the  aid  of  a  lexicon,  to  analyze  and  translate   them  with 
readiness  and  elegance.     They  should  give  him  the  key  to  the 
storehouse  of  ancient  literature,  that  he  may  explore  its  treas- 
ures for  himself  in  after  life.     This  can  be  done  in  two  years 
less  than  the  usual  time,  and  nearly  as  well  as  it  is  done  now. 

I  am  glad  to  inform  you,  young  gentlemen,  that  the  trustees 
of  this  institution  have  this  day  resolved  that,  in  the  course  of 
study  to  be  pursued  here,  Latin  and  Greek  shall  not  be  rc- 
quircd  after  the  Freshman  year.  They  must  be  studied  the 
usual  time  as  a  requisite  to  admission,  and  they  may  be  car- 
ried farther  than  the  Freshman  year  as  elective  studies;  but  in 
the  regular  course  their  places  will  be  supplied  by  some  of 
the  studies  I  have  already  mentioned.  Three  or  four  terms  in 
general  literature  will  teach  you  that  the  republic  of  letters  is 
larger  than  Greece  or  Rome. 

The  board  of  trustees  have  been  strengthened  in  the  position 
they  have  taken,  by  the  fact  that  a  similar  course  for  the  future 

*  Hamilton's  Method  of  Teaching  Languages. 


COLLEGE  EDUCATION,  283 

has  recently  been  announced  by  the  authorities  of  Harvard  Col- 
lege. Within  the  last  six  days,  I  have  received  a  circular  from 
the  secretary  of  that  venerable  college,  which  announces  that 
two  thirds  of  the  Latin  and  Greek  are  hereafter  to  be  stricken 
from  the  list  of  required  studies  of  the  college  course.  I  rejoice 
that  the  movement  has  begun.  Other  colleges  must  follow  the 
example ;  and  the  day  will  not  be  far  distant  when  it  shall  be 
the  pride  of  a  scholar  that  he  is  also  a  worker,  and  when  the 
worker  shall  not  refuse  to  become  a  scholar  because  he  despises 
a  trifler. 

I  congratulate  you  that  this  change  does  not  reduce  the 
amount  of  labor  required  of  you.  If  it  did,  I  should  deplore  it. 
I  beseech  you  to  remember  that  the  genius  of  success  is  still 
the  genius  of  the  lamp.  If  hard  work  is  not  another  name  for 
talent,  it  is  the  best  possible  substitute  for  it.  In  the  long  run, 
the  chief  difference  in  men  will  be  found  in  the  amount  of  work 
they  do.  Do  not  trust  to  what  lazy  men  call  the  spur  of  the 
occasion.  If  you  wish  to  wear  spurs  in  the  tournament  of  life, 
you  must  buckle  them  to  your  own  heels  before  you  enter  the 
lists. 

Men  look  with  admiring  wonder  upon  a  great  intellectual 
effort,  like  VV^ebster's  reply  to  Hayne,  and  seem  to  think  that  it 
leaped  into  life  by  the  inspiration  of  the  moment.  But  if  by 
some  intellectual  chemistry  we  could  resolve  that  masterly 
speech  into  its  several  elements  of  power,  and  trace  each  to 
its  source,  we  should  find  that  every  constituent  force  had  been 
elaborated  twenty  years  before,  —  it  may  be,  in  some  hour  of 
earnest  intellectual  labor.  Occasion  may  be  the  bugle-call  that 
summons  an  army  to  battle ;  but  the  blast  of  a  bugle  can  never 
make  soldiers,  or  win  victories. 

And  finally,  young  gentlemen,  learn  to  cultivate  a  wise  re- 
liance, based  not  on  what  you  hope,  but  on  what  you  perform. 
It  has  long  been  the  habit  of  this  institution,  if  I  may  so  speak, 
to  throw  young  men  overboard,  and  let  them  sink  or  swim. 
None  have  yet  drowned  who  were  worth  the  saving.  I  hope 
the  practice  will  be  continued,  and  that  you  will  not  rely  upon 
outside  help  for  growth  or  success.  Give  crutches  to  cripples; 
but  go  you  forth  with  brave,  true  hearts,  knowing  that  fortune 
dwells  in  your  brain  and  muscle,  and  that  labor  is  the  only 
human  symbol  of  Omnipotence. 


— — 


THE   CURRENCY. 

SPEECH   DELIVERED  IN  THE  HOUSE  OF  REPRESENTATIVES. 

May  is,  1868. 


What  was  the  original  view  of  the  Legal  Tender  Act  and  the  suspen- 
sion of  specie  payments,  was  pointed  out  in  the  introduction  to  the 
speech  of  March  16,  1866.  That  this  view  was  still  the  current  one  at 
the  close  of  the  war,  is  shown  by  the  fact  that  the  House  of  Representa- 
tives, by  a  vote  of  144  to  6,  adopted  the  resolution  of  Dec.  18,  1865, 
quoted  in  this  speech.^  A  further  test  of  the  same  kind  is  found  in 
the  act  of  April  12,  1866,  which  gave  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury 
power  to  call  in  and  cancel  legal-tender  notes,  ten  millions  of  dollars  the 
first  six  months,  and  after  that  at  the  rate  of  four  millions  per  month. 
But  even  at  that  time  the  effect  of  an  inflated  currency,  and  of  ihe 
general  use  of  unredeemed  promises  as  money,  could  be  seen  in  many 
ways.  The  public  intelligence  was  becoming  darkened,  and  the  public 
conscience  hardened.  Henceforth  for  several  years  a  settled  and  deter- 
mined popular  movement  in  the  direction  of  inflation  can  be  traced. 
Congress  responded  to  popular  opinion  by  enacting,  January  23,  1868, 
"  That  from  and  after  the  passage  of  this  act  the  authority  of  the 
Secretary  of  the  Treasury  to  make  any  reduction  of  the  currency,  by 
retiring  or  cancelling  United  States  notes,  shall  be  and  is  hereby  sus- 
pended." Since  the  passage  of  the  act  of  April  12,  1866,  the  Secretary 
of  the  Treasury  had  retired  $44,000,000  of  greenbacks.  The  act  of 
1868  took  from  him  the  power  further  to  contract  the  currency,  and 
indefinitely  postponed  the  return  to  specie  payments.  The  proposition 
to  pay  the  five-twenty  bonds  in  legal-tender  notes  had  already  been  sub- 
mitted to  the  public,  and  received  with  much  favor.  These  extreme 
financial  doctrines  were  advocated  upon  the  floor  of  Congress.  Day  by 
day,  the  tide  of  folly  and  dishonor  rose  higher  and  higher.  Hence,  as 
an  attempt  to  check  its  higher  rise,  if  possible  to  turn  it  back,  Mr. 
Garfield  prepared  and  delivered  the  following  speech.  As  the  House 
was  in  Committee  of  the  Whole  on  the  state  of  the  Union,  he  was  able 

'  See  also  note  to  speech  of  March  16, 1866,  ante^  p.  200. 


THE   CURRENCY,  285 

to  handle  his  subject  in  the  broadest  way,  and  was  not  required  to 
deal  with  any  particular  measure.  Accordingly,  this  is  one  of  the  most 
expository  of  all  his  financial  speeches,  and  comes  nearer,  perhaps,  to 
being  a  sound-money  manual,  than  any  other  speech  of  his  life.* 


'*  I  cannot  but  lament  from  my  inmost  soul  that  lust  for  paper  money  which  appears  in  some 
parts  of  the  United  States ;  there  will  never  be  any  uniform  rule,  if  there  is  any  sense  of  justice, 
nor  any  clear  credit,  public  or  private,  nor  any  settled  confidence  in  public  men  or  measures, 
until  paper  money  is  done  away."  — John  Adams. 

MR.  CHAIRMAN,  —  I  am  aware  that  financial  subjects  are 
dull  and  uninviting  in  comparison  with  those  heroic 
themes  which  have  absorbed  the  attention  of  Congress  for  the 
last  five  years.  To  turn  from  the  consideration  of  armies  and 
navies,  victories  and  defeats,  to  the  long  array  of  figures  which 
exhibit  the  debt,  expenditure,  taxation,  and  industry  of  the 
nation,  requires  no  little  courage  and  self-denial ;  but  to  those 
questions  we  must  come,  and  to  their  solution  Congresses,  politi- 
cal parties,  and  all  thoughtful  citizens  must  give  their  best  efforts 
for  many  years  to  come.  Our  public  debt,  the  greatest  financial 
fact  of  this  century,  stands  in  the  pathway  of  all  political  parties, 
and,  like  the  Theban  Sphinx,  propounds  its  riddles.  All  the 
questions  which  spring  out  of  the  public  debt,  —  such  as  loans, 
bonds,  tariffs,  internal  taxation,  banking,  and  currency,  —  pre- 
sent greater  difficulties  than  usually  come  within  the  scope  of 
American  politics.  They  cannot  be  settled  by  force  of  numbers, 
nor  carried  by  assault,  as  an  army  storms  the  works  of  an  enemy. 
Patient  examination  of  facts,  careful  study  of  principles  which 
do  not  always  appear  on  the  surface,  and  which  involve  the  most 
difficult  problems  of  political  economy,  are  the  weapons  of  this 
warfare.  No  sentiment  of  national  pride  should  make  us  un- 
mindful of  the  fact  that  we  have  less  experience  in  this  direction 
than  any  other  civilized  nation.  If  this  fact  is  not  creditable  to 
our  intellectual  reputation,  it  at  least  affords  a  proof  that  our 
people  have  not  hitherto  been  crushed  under  the  burdens  of 
taxation.     We  must  consent  to  be  instructed  by  the  experience 

^  It  is  proper  to  say  that  copies  of  this  speech  were  sent  to  Europe  by  the  Sec- 
retary of  the  Treasury,  who  hoped  it  might  have  a  favorable  effect  upon  American 
credit  abroid.  Some  of  these  copies  came  into  the  hands  of  influential  members 
of  the  Cobden  Club,  London,  and  led  at  once  to  Mr.  Garfield's  election  to  its 
honorary  membership. 


286  THE  CURRENCY. 

of  other  nations,  and  be  willing  to  approach  these  questions,  not 
with  the  dogmatism  of  teachers,  but  as  seekers  after  truth. 

It  is  evident  that,  both  in  Congress  and  among  the  people, 
there  is  great  diversity  of  opinion  on  all  these  themes.  He  is 
indeed  a  bold  man  who,  at  this  time,  claims  to  have  mastered 
any  one  of  them,  or  reached  conclusions  on  all  its  features  satis- 
factory even  to  himself.  For  myself;  I  claim  only  to  have  studied 
earnestly  to  know  what  the  best  interests  of  the  country  demand 
at  the  hands  of  Congress.  I  have  listened  with  great  respect  to 
the  opinions  of  those  with  whom  I  differ  most,  and  only  ask  for 
myself  what  I  award  to  all  others,  a  patient  hearing. 

The  past  six  months  have  been  remarkable  for  unparalleled 
distress  in  the  commercial  and  industrial  interests  of  half  the 
civilized  world.  In  Great  Britain  the  distress  among  the  labor- 
ing classes  is  more  terrible  than  the  people  of  those  islands  have 
suffered  for  a  quarter  of  a  century.  From  every  city,  town,  and 
village  in  the  kingdom  the  cry  of  distress  comes  up  through 
every  issue  of  the  press.  The  London  Times  of  December  1 1 
says :  "  Last  winter  the  demands  on  the  public  were  unprece- 
dented. The  amount  of  money  given  to  the  poor  of  London 
beyond  that  disbursed  in  legal  relief  of  the  poor  was  almost 
incredible.  It  seemed  the  demand  had  reached  its  high- 
est point ;  but  if  we  arc  not  mistaken,  the  exigencies  of  the 
present  season  will  surpass  those  of  any  former  year  in  British 
history."  The  London  Star,  of  a  still  later  date,  says :  "  Men 
and  women  die  in  our  streets  every  day  of  starvation.  Whole 
districts  are  sinking  into  one  vast,  squalid,  awful  condition  of 
helpless,  hopeless  destitution." 

From  many  parts  of  Continental  Europe  there  comes  a  simi- 
lar cry.  A  few  weeks  since,  the  Secretary  of  State  laid  before 
this  body  a  letter  from  the  American  Minister  at  Copenhagen, 
appealing  to  this  country  for  contributions  for  the  relief  of  the 
suffering  poor  of  Sweden  and  Norway.  A  late  Berlin  paper 
says,  "  Business  is  at  a  stand-still,  and  privation  and  suffering 
are  everywhere  seen."  The  inhabitants  of  Eastern  Prussia  are 
appealing  to  the  German  citizens  of  the  United  States  for  imme- 
diate relief.  In  Russia  the  horrors  of  pestilence  are  added  to 
the  sufferings  of  famine.  In  Finland  the  peasants  are  dying  of 
starvation  by  hundreds.  In  some  parts  of  France  and  Spain 
the  scarcity  is  very  great.  In  Northern  Africa  the  suffering 
is  still   greater.     In  Algiers   the   deaths  by  starvation  are   so 


THE  CURRENCY.  287 

numerous  that  the  victims  are  buried  in  trenches  like  the  slain 
on  a  battle-field.  In  Tunis  eigjit  thousand  have  thus  perished 
in  two  months.  The  United  States  Consul  at  that  place  writes 
that  on  the  27th  of  December  two  hundred  people  starved  to 
death  in  the  streets  of  that  city,  and  the  average  daily  deaths 
from  starvation  exceed  one  hundred. 

Our  sadness  at  the  contemplation  of  this  picture  is  mingled 
with  indignation,  when  we  reflect  that  at  the  present  moment, 
in  the  eight  principal  nations  of  Europe,  there  are  three  million 
men  under  arms  at  an  annual  cost  of  nearly  a  thousand  million 
dollars,  —  an  expense  which  in  twenty  years  would  pay  every 
national  debt  in  Christendom.  And  this  only  the  peace  estab- 
lishment! While  Napoleon  is  feeding  fifty  thousand  starving 
Frenchmen  daily  from  the  soup  kitchens  of  the  imperial  palace, 
he  is  compelling  the  French  legislature  to  double  his  army. 
Whatever  distress  our  people  may  be  suffering,  they  have  reason 
to  be  thankful  that  the  bloody  monster  called  the  "balance  of 
power"  has  never  cast  its  shadow  upon  our  country.  We  have 
reason,  indeed,  to  be  thankful  that  our  people  are  suffering  less 
than  the  people  of  any  other  nation.  But  the  distress  here  is 
unusual  for  us.  It  is  seen  in  the  depression  of  business,  the 
stagnation  of  trade,  the  high  price  of  provisions,  and  the  great 
difficulty  which  laboring  men  encounter  in  finding  employment. 
It  is  said  that  during  the  past  winter  seventy-five  thousand 
laborers  in  New  York  City  have  been  unable  to  find  employ- 
ment The  whole  industry  of  the  States  lately  in  rebellion  is 
paralyzed,  and  in  many  localities  the  cry  of  hunger  is  heard. 
It  is  the  imperative  duty  of  Congress  to  ascertain  the  cause 
of  this  derangement  of  our  industrial  forces,  and  apply  whatever 
remedy  legislation  can  afford.  The  field  is  a  broad  one,  the 
subject  is  many-sided ;  but  our  first  step  should  be  to  ascertain 
the  facts  of  our  situation. 

I  shall  direct  my  remarks  on  this  occasion  to  but  one  fea- 
ture of  our  legislation.  I  propose  to  discuss  the  currency, 
and  its  relation  to  the  revenue  and  business  prosperity  of  the 
country. 

In  April,  1861,  there  began  in  this  country  an  industrial 
revolution,  not  yet  completed,  as  gigantic  in  its  proportions 
and  as  far-reaching  in  its  consequences  as  the  political  and 
military  revolution  through  which  we  have  passed.  As  the 
first  step   to  any   intelligent   discussion  of  the  currency,  it  is 


288  THE  CURRENCY. 

necessary  to  examine  the  character  and  progress  of  that  indus- 
trial revolution.  ^ 

The  year  i860  was  one  of  remarkable  prosperity  in  all 
branches  ot  business.  For  seventy  years  no  Federal  tax- 
gatherer  had  been  seen  among  the  laboring  population  of  the 
United  States.  Our  public  debt  was  less  than  sixty-five  million 
dollars.  The  annual  expenditures  of  the  government,  including 
interest  on  the  public  debt,  were  less  than  sixty-four  million 
dollars.  The  revenues  from  customs  alone  amounted  to  six 
sevenths  of  the  expenditures.  The  value  of  our  agricultural 
products  for  that  year  amounted  to  $i,625,ocx),ooo.  Our  cotton 
crop  alone  was  2,155,000,000  pounds,  and  we  supplied  to  the 
markets  of  the  world  seven  eighths  of  all  the  cotton  consumed. 
Our  merchant  marine,  engaged  in  foreign  trade,  amounted 
to  2,546,237  tons,  and  promised  soon  to  rival  the  immense 
carrying  trade  of  England. 

Let  us  now  observe  the  effect  of  the  war  on  the  various 
departments  of  business.  From  the  moment  the  first  hostile 
gun  was  fired,  the  Federal  and  State  governments  became  gi- 
gantic consumers.  As  far  as  production  was  concerned,  eleven 
States  were  completely  separated  from  the  Union.  Two  mil- 
lion laborers  —  more  than  one  third  of  the  adult  population  of 
the  Northern  States  —  were  withdrawn  from  the  ranks  of  pro- 
ducers, and  became  only  consumers  of  wealth.  The  Federal 
governrtient  became  an  insatiable  devourer.  Leaving  out  of 
account  the  vast  sums  expended  by  States,  counties,  cities, 
towns,  and  individuals  for  the  payment  of  bounties,  for  the 
relief  of  sick  and  wounded  soldiers  and  their  families,  and 
omitting  the  losses  —  which  can  never  be  estimated  —  of  prop- 
erty destroyed  by  hostile  armies,  I  shall  speak  only  of  ex- 
penditures which  appear  on  the  books  of  the  Federal  Treasury. 
From  the  30th  of  June,  1 861,  to  the  30th  of  June,  1865,  there 
were  paid  out  of  the  Federal  treasury  $3,340,996,21 1,  making 
an  average  for  these  four  years  of  more  than  $836,000,000  per 
annum. 

From  the  official  records  of  the  Treasury  Department  it 
appears  that,  from  the  beginning  of  the  American  Revolution 
in  1775  to  the  beginning  of  the  late  rebellion,  the  total  ex- 
penditures of  the  government  for  all  purposes,  including  the 
Assumed  war  debts  of  the  States,  amounted  to  $2,250,000,000. 
The  expenditures  of  four   years  of  the  rebellion  were  nearly 


THE  CURRENCY.  289 

$i,ioo,ocx>,(XX)  more  than  all  the  Federal  expenses  since  the 
Declaration  of  Independence.  The  debt  of  England,  which 
had  its  origin  in  the  Revolution  of  1688,  and  was  increased  by 
more  than  one  hundred  years  of  war  and  other  political  disas- 
ters, had  reached  in  1793  the  sum  of  $1,268,000,000.  During 
the  twenty-two  years  that  followed,  while  England  was  engaged 
in  a  life  and  death  struggle  with  Napoleon,  $3,056,000,000  was 
added  to  her  debt.  In  four  years  we  spent  $300,000,000  more 
than  the  amount  by  which  England  increased  her  debt  in  twenty- 
two  years  of  war,  —  almost  as  much  as  she  had  increased  it  in 
one  hundred  and  twenty-five  years  of  war.  Now,  the  enormous 
demand  which  this  expenditure  created  for  all  the  products  of 
industry  stimulated  to  an  unparalleled  degree  every  depart- 
ment of  business.  Plough,  furnace,  mill,  loom,  railroad,  steam- 
boat, telegraph,  —  all  were  driven  to  their  utmost  capacity. 
Warehouses  were  emptied;  and  the  great  reserves  of  supply, 
which  all  nations  in  a  normal  state  keep  on  hand,  were  ex- 
hausted to  meet  the  demands  of  the  great  consumer.  For  many 
months  the  government  swallowed  three  millions  per  day  of  the 
products  of  industry.  Under  the  pressure  of  this  demand,  prices 
rose  rapidly  in  every  department  of  business.  Labor  everywhere 
found  quick  and  abundant  returns.  Old  debts  were  cancelled, 
and  great  fortunes  were  made. 

For  the  transaction  of  this  enormous  business  an  increased 
amount  of  currency  was  needed ;  but  I  doubt  if  any  member 
of  this  House  can  be  found  bold  enough  to  deny  that  the 
deluge  of  treasury  notes  poured  upon  the  country  during  the 
war  was  far  greater  than  even  the  great  demands  of  business. 
Let  it  not  be  forgotten,  however,  that  the  chief  object  of  these 
issues  was  not  to  increase  the  currency  of  the  country.  They 
were  authorized  with  great  reluctance  and  under  the  pressure 
of  ovenvhelming  necessity,  as  a  temporary  expedient  to  meet 
the  demands  of  the  treasury.  They  were  really  forced  loans 
in  the  form  of  treasury  notes.  By  the  act  of  July  17,  1861, 
an  issue  of  demand  notes  was  authorized  to  the  amount  of 
$50,000,000.  By  the  act  of  August  5,  1861,  this  amount  was 
increased  $50,000,000  more.  By  the  act  of  February  25,  1862, 
an  additional  issue  of  $150,000,000  was  authorized.  On  the 
17th  of  the  same  month  an  unlimited  issue  of  fractional  cur- 
rency was  authorized.     On  the   17th  of  January,  1863,  an  issue 

of  $150,000,000   more  was    authorized,   which   was    increased 
voL.»i.  19 


,')^i*» 


290  THE   CURRENCY. 

$50,ocx),(XX)  by  the  act  of  March  3  of  the  same  year.  This 
act  also  authorized  the  issue  of  one  and  two  years'  Treasury 
notes,  bearing  interest  at  five  per  cent,  to  be  a  legal  tender  for 
their  face,  to  the  amount  of  $400,ocx),ooo.  By  the  act  of  June 
30,  1864,  an  issue  of  six  per  cent  compound-interest  notes,  to 
be  a  legal  tender  for  their  face,  was  authorized,  to  the  amount 
of  $200,000,000.  In  addition  to  this,  many  other  forms  of 
paper  obligation  were  authorized,  which,  though  not  a  legal 
tender,  performed  many  of  the  functions  of  currency.  By  the 
act  of  March  i,  1862,  the  issue  of  an  unlimited  amount  of  cer- 
tificates of  indebtedness  was  authorized,  and  within  ninety  days 
after  the  passage  of  the  act,  there  had  been  issued  and  were 
outstanding  of  these  certificates  more  than  $156,000,000.  Of 
course  these  issues  were  not  all  outstanding  at  the  same  time, 
but  the  acts  show  how  great  was  the  necessity  for  loans  during 
the  war. 

The  law  which  made  the  vast  volume  of  United  States  notes 
a  legal  tender  operated  as  an  act  of  general  bankruptcy.  The 
man  who  loaned  $1,000  in  July,  1861,  payable  in  three  years, 
was  compelled  by  this  law  to  accept  at  maturity,  as  a  full  dis- 
charge of  the  debt,  an  amount  of  currency  equal  in  value  to 
$350  of  the  money  he  loaned.  Private  indebtedness  was  every- 
where cancelled.  Rising  prices  increased  the  profits  of  business ; 
but  this  prosperity  was  caused  by  the  great  demand  for  pro- 
ducts, and  not  by  the  abundance  of  paper  money.  As  a  means 
of  transacting  the  vast  business  of  the  country,  a  great  volume 
of  currency  was  indispensable;  and  its  importance  cannot  be 
well  overestimated.  But  let  us  not  be  led  into  the  fatal  error 
of  supposing  that  paper  money  created  the  business  or  pro- 
duced the  wealth.  As  well  might  it  be  alleged  that  our  rivers 
and  canals  produce  the  grain  which  they  float  to  market.  Like 
currency,  the  channels  of  commerce  stimulate  production,  but 
cannot  nullify  the  inexorable  law  of  demand  and  supply. 

Mr.  Chairman,  I  have  endeavored  to  trace  the  progress  of 
our  industrial  revolution  in  passing  from  peace  to  war.  In 
returning  from  war  to  peace  all  the  conditions  were  reversed. 
At  once  the  government  ceased  to  be  an  all-devouring  con- 
sumer. Nearly  two  million  able-bodied  men  were  discharged 
from  the  army  and  navy,  and  enrolled  in  the  ranks  of  the  pro- 
ducers. The  expenditures  of  the  government,  which  for  the 
fiscal  year  ending  June  30,  1865,  amounted  to  $1,290,000,000, 


THE   CURRENCY.  291 

were  reduced  to  $520,cxx),cxx)  in  1866,  to  $346,000,000  in  1867; 
and,  if  the  retrenchment  measures  recommended  by  the  Special 
Commissioner  of  the  Revenue,  be  adopted,  another  year  will 
bring  them  below  $300,000,000.  Thus  during  the  first  year 
after  the  war  the  demands  of  the  Federal  government  as  a 
consumer  decreased  sixty  per  cent;  and  in  the  second  year 
the  decrease  had  reached  seventy-four  per  cent,  with  a  fair 
prospect  of  a  still  further  reduction. 

The  recoil  of  this  sudden  change  would  have  produced  great 
financial  disaster  in  1866,  but  for  the  fact  that  there  was  still 
open  to  industry  the  work  of  replacing  the  wasted  reserves  of 
supply,  which  in  all  countries  in  a  healthy  state  of  business  are 
estimated  to  be  sufficient  for  two  years.  During  1866,  the  fall 
in  price  of  all  articles  of  industry  amounted  to  an  average  of 
ten  per  cent.  One  year  ago  a  table  was  prepared  at  my  request 
by  Mr.  Edward  Young,  in  the  office  of  the  Special  Commis- 
sioner of  the  Revenue,  exhibiting  a  comparison  of  wholesale 
prices  at  New  York  in  December,  1865,  and  December,  1866. 
It  shows  that  in  ten  leading  articles  of  provisions  there  was  an 
average  decline  of  twenty-two  per  cent,  though  beef,  together 
with  flour  and  other  breadstuffs,  remained  nearly  stationary. 
On  cotton  and  woollen  goods,  boots,  shoes,  and  clothing,  the  de- 
cline was  thirty  per  cent.  On  the  products  of  manufacture  and 
mining,  including  coal,  cordage,  iron,  lumber,  naval  stores,  oils, 
tallow,  tin,  and  wool,  the  decline  was  twenty-five  per  cent.  The 
average  decline  on  all  commodities  was  at  least  ten  per  cent. 
According  to  the  estimates  of  the  Special  Commissioner  of  the 
Revenue  in  his  late  report,  the  average  decline  during  1867  has 
amounted  to  at  least  ten  per  cent  more.  During  the  past  two 
years,  Congress  has  provided  by  law  for  reducing  internal  taxa- 
tion $100,000,000;  and  the  act  passed  a  few  weeks  ago  has 
reduced  the  tax  on  manufactures  by  the  amount  of  $64,000,000 
per  annum.  The  repeal  of  the  cotton  tax  will  make  a  further 
reduction  of  $20,000,000.  State  and  municipal  taxation  and 
expenditures  have  also  been  greatly  reduced.  The  work  of 
replacing  these  reserves  delayed  the  shock  and  distributed  its 
effects,  but  could  not  avert  the  inevitable  result.  During  the 
past  two  years,  one  by  one,  the  various  departments  of  indus- 
try produced  a  supply  equal  to  the  demand.  Then  followed  a 
glutted  market,  a  fall  in  prices,  and  a  stagnation  of  business  by 
which  thousands  of  laborers  were  thrown  out  of  employment. 


^^  THE  CURRENCY. 

If  to  this  it  be  added  that  the  famine  in  Europe  and  the 
viuMi^Kt  in  many  of  the  s^cultural  States  of  the  Union  have 
kv|><  Uic  price  of  provisions  from  falling  as  other  commodities 
haY«  £adkii>  we  shall  have  a  sufficient  explanation  of  the  stag- 
OA^iott  of  business  and  the  unusual  distress  among  our  people. 

Thi^  industrial  revolution  has  been  governed  by  laws  beyond 
|hc  reach  of  Congress.  No  legislation  could  have  arrested  it 
4t  ;iU)y  stage  of  its  progress.  The  most  that  could  possibly  be 
J^.>1K''  by  Congress  was  to  take  advantage  of  the  prosperity  it 
vHN*aoncd  to  raise  a  revenue  for  the  support  of  the  government, 
4IkI  to  nnitigate  the  severity  of  its  subsequent  pressure,  by 
ivxlucing  the  vast  machinery  of  war  to  the  lowest  scale  possible. 
Manifestly,  nothing  can  be  more  absurd  than  to  suppose  that 
^hv^  abundance  of  currency  produced  the  prosperity  of  1863, 
li^%  and  1865,  or  that  the  want  of  it  is  the  cause  of  our 
^uvs&ont  stagnation. 

In  onler  to  reach  a  satisfactory  understanding  of  th6  currency 
question,  it  is  necessary  to  consider  somewhat  fully  the  nature 
^nsl  functions  of  money,  or  any  substitute  for  it. 

The  theory  of  money  which  formed  the  basis  of  the  "  mer- 
cantile system  "  of  the  seventeenth  and  eighteenth  centuries  has 
Uvn  rejected  by  all  leading  financiers  and  political  economists 
\\\x  the  last  seventy-five  years.  That  theory  asserted  that 
uuMU*y  is  wealth ;  that  the  great  object  of  every  nation  should 
tu*  to  increase  its  amount  of  gold  and  silver ;  that  this  was  a 
slireet  increase  of  national  wealth.  It  is  now  held  as  an  indis- 
|MitabIe  truth,  that  money  is  an  instrument  of  trade,  and  pcr- 
|\nins  but  two  functions.  It  is  a  measure  of  value  and  a  medium 
\if  exchange. 

In  cases  of  simple  barter,  where  no  money  is  used,  we  esti- 
nuite  the  relative  values  of  the  commodities  to  be  exchanged 
in  dollars  and  cents,  it  being  our  only  universal  measure  of 
value.  As  a  medium  of  exchange,  money  is  to  all  business 
transactions  what  ships  are  to  the  transportation  of  merchandise. 
If  a  hundred  vessels  of  a  given  tonnage  are  just  sufficient  to 
carry  all  the  commodities  between  two  ports,  any  increase  of 
the  number  of  vessels  will  correspondingly  decrease  the  value 
of  each  as  an  instrument  of  commerce ;  any  decrease  below  one 
hundred  will  correspondingly  increase  the  value  of  each.  If  the 
number  be  doubled,  each  will  carry  but  half  its  usual  freight, 
will  be  worth  but  half  its  former  value  for  that  trade.     There  is 


L 


THE  CURRENCY.  293 

so  much  work  to  be  done,  and  no  more.  A  hundred  vessels  can 
do  it  all.  A  thousand  can  do  no  more  than  all.  The  functions 
of  money  as  a  medium  of  exchange,  though  more  complicated 
in  their  application,  are  precisely  the  same  in  principle  as  the 
functions  of  the  vessels  in  the  case  I  have  supposed. 

If  we  could  ascertain  the  total  value  of  all  the  exchanges 
effected  in  this  country  by  means  of  money  in  any  year,  and 
could  ascertain  how  many  dollars*  worth  of  such  exchanges  can 
be  effected  in  a  year  by  one  dollar  in  money,  we  should  know 
how  much  money  the  country  needed  for  the  business  transac- 
tions of  that  year.  Any  decrease  below  that  amount  will  cor- 
respondingly increase  the  value  of  each  dollar  as  an  instrument 
of  exchange.  Any  increase  above  that  amount  will  corre- 
spondingly decrease  the  value  of  each  dollar.  If  that  amount 
be  doubled,  each  dollar  of  the  whole  mass  will  perform  but  half 
the  amount  of  business  it  did  before ;  will  be  worth  but  half  its 
former  value  as  a  medium  of  exchange.*  Recurring  to  our  illus- 
tration :  if,  instead  of  sailing-vessels,  steam-vessels  were  substi- 
tuted, a  much  smaller  tonnage  would  be  required ;  so,  if  it  were 
found  that  $500,000,000  of  paper,  each  worth  seventy  cents  in 
gold,  were  sufficient  for  the  business  of  the  country,  it  is  equally 
evident  that  $350,000,000  of  gold  substituted  for  the  paper 
would  perform  precisely  the  same  amount  of  business. 

It  should  be  remembered,  also,  that  any  improvement  in  the 
mode  of  transacting  business,  by  which  the  actual  use  of  money 
is  in  part  dispensed  with,  reduces  the  total  amount  needed  by 
the  country.  How  much  has  been  accomplished  in  this  direc- 
tion by  recent  improvements  in  banking,  may  be  seen  in  the 
operations  of  the  clearing-houses  in  our  great  cities.  The  rec- 
ords of  the  New  York  clearing-house  show  that  from  October 
II,  1853,  the  date  of  its  establishment,  to  October  11,  1867, 
the  exchanges  amounted  to  nearly  $180,000,000,000;  to  effect 
which,  less  than  $8,000,000,000  of  money  were  used ;  an  aver- 
age of  about  four  per  cent;  that  is,  exchanges  were  made  to 
the  amount  of  $100,000,000  by  the  payment  of  $4,000,000  of 
money.  It  is  also  a  settled  principle,  that  all  deposits  in  banks 
drawn  upon  by  checks  and  drafts  really  serve  the  purpose  of 
money. 

The  amount  of  currency  needed  in  the  country  depends,  as 
we  have  seen,  upon  the  amount  of  business  transacted  by  means 
of  money.     The  amount   of  business,    however,    is   varied    by 


294  '^^^   CURRENCY. 

many  causes  which  are  irregular  and  uncertain  in  their  opera- 
tion. An  Indian  war,  deficient  or  abundant  harvests,  an  over- 
flow of  the  cotton  lands  of  the  South,  a  bread  famine  or  a  war 
in  Europe,  and  a  score  of  such  causes  entirely  beyond  the  reach 
of  legislation,  may  make  money  deficient  this  year  and  abun- 
dant next.  The  needed  amount  varies,  also,  from  month  to 
month  in  the  same  year.  More  money  is  required  in  the  au- 
tumn, when  the  vast  products  of  agriculture  are  being  moved 
to  market,  than  when  the  great  army  of  laborers  are  in  winter 
quarters,  awaiting  the  seedtime. 

When  the  money  of  the  country  is  gold  and  silver,  it  adapts 
itself  to  the  fluctuations  of  business  without  the  aid  of  legisla- 
tion. If,  at  any  time,  we  have  more  than  is  needed,  the  surplus 
flows  off  to  other  countries  through  the  channels  of  international 
commerce.  If  less,  the  deficiency  is  supplied  through  the  same 
channels.  Thus  the  monetary  equilibrium  is  maintained.  So 
immense  is  the  trade  of  the  world,  that  the  golden  streams  pour- 
ing from  California  and  Australia  into  the  specie  circulation  are 
soon  absorbed  in  the  great  mass  and  equalized  throughout  the 
world,  as  the  waters  of  all  the  rivers  are  spread  upon  the  sur- 
face of  all  the  seas.  Not  so,  however,  with  an  inconvertible 
paper  currency.  Excepting  the  specie  used  in  payment  of  cus- 
toms and  the  interest  on  our  public  debt,  we  are  cut  off  from 
the  money  currents  of  the  world.  Our  currency  resembles 
rather  the  waters  of  an  artificial  lake,  which  lie  in  stagnation  or 
rise  to  full  banks  at  the  caprice  of  the  gate-keeper.  Gold  and 
silver  abhor  depreciated  paper  money,  and  will  not  keep  com- 
pany with  it.  If  our  currency  be  more  abundant  than  business 
demands,  not  a  dollar  of  it  can  go  abroad ;  if  deficient,  not  a 
dollar  of  gold  will  come  in  to  supply  the  lack.  There  is  no 
legislature  on  earth  wise  enough  to  adjust  such  a  currency  to 
the  wants  of  the  country. 

Let  us  examine  more  minutely  the  effect  of  such  a  currency 
upon  prices.  Suppose  that  the  business  transactions  of  the 
country  at  the  present  time  require  $350,000,000  in  gold.  It 
is  manifest  that  if  there  are  just  $350,000,000  of  legal-tender 
notes,  and  no  other  money  in  the  country,  each  dollar  will  per- 
form the  full  functions  of  a  gold  dollar,  so  far  as  the  work  of 
exchange  is  concerned.  Now,  business  remaining  the  same,  let 
$350,000,000  more  of  the  same  kind  of  notes  be  pressed  into 
circulation.     The  whole  volume,  as  thus  increased,  can  do  no 


THE   CURRENCY.  295 

more  than  all  the  business.  Each  dollar  will  accomplish  just 
half  the  work  that  a  dollar  did  before  the  increase ;  but  as  the 
nominal  dollar  is  fixed  by  law,  the  effect  is  shown  in  prices  be- 
ing doubled.  It  requires  two  of  these  dollars  to  make  the  same 
purchase  that  one  dollar  made  before  the  increase.  It  would 
require  some  time  for  the  business  of  the  country  to  adjust  itself 
to  the  new  conditions,  and  great  derangement  of  values  would 
ensue;  but  the  result  would  at  last  be  reached  in  all  transac- 
tions which  are  controlled  by  the  law  of  demand  and  supply. 

No  such  change  of  values  can  occur  without  cost  Somebody 
must  pay  for  it.  Who  pays  in  this  case?  We  have  seen  that 
doubling  the  currency  finally  results  in  reducing  the  purchasing 
power  of  each  dollar  one  half;  hence  every  man  who  held  a 
legal-tender  note  at  the  time  of  the  increase,  and  continued  to 
hold  it  till  the  full  effect  of  the  increase  was  produced,  suffered 
a  loss  of  fifty  per  cent  of  its  value ;  in  other  words,  he  paid  a 
tax  to  the  amount  of  half  of  all  the  currency  in  his  possession. 
This  new  issue,  therefore,  by  depreciating  the  value  of  all  the 
currency,  cost  the  holders  of  the  old  issue  $i75,ooo,cxx);  and  if 
the  new  notes  were  received  at  their  nominal  value  at  the  date 
of  issue,  their  holders  paid  a  tax  of  $175,000,000  more.  No 
more  unequal  or  unjust  mode  of  taxation  could  possibly  be  de- 
vised. It  would  be  tolerated  only  by  being  so  involved  in  the 
transactions  of  business  as  to  be  concealed  from  observation ; 
but  it  would  be  no  less  real  because  hidden. 

But  some  one  may  say,  "  This  depreciation  would  fall  upon 
capitalists  and  rich  men  who  are  able  to  bear  it."  If  this 
were  true,  it  would  be  no  less  unjust.  But,  unfortunately,  the 
capitalists  would  suffer  less  than  any  other  class.  The  new  issue 
would  be  paid  in  the  first  place  in  large  amounts  to  the  creditors 
of  the  government;  it  would  pass  from  their  hands  before  the 
depreciation  had  taken  full  effect,  and,  passing  down  step  by 
step  through  the  ranks  of  middle-men,  the  dead  weight  would 
fall  at  last  upon  the  laboring  classes  in  the  increased  price  of  all 
the  necessaries  of  life.  It  is  well  known  that,  in  a  general  rise 
of  prices,  wages  are  among  the  last  to  rise.  This  principle  was 
illustrated  in  the  report  of  the  Special  Commissioner  of  the 
Revenue  for  the  year  i866.  It  is  there  shown  that  from  the 
beginning  of  the  war  to  the  end  of  1866  the  average  price  of  all 
commodities  had  risen  ninety  per  cent.  Wages,  however,  had 
risen  but  sixty  per  cent.     A  day's  labor  would  purchase  but  two 


296  THE   CURRENCY. 

thirds  as  much  of  the  necessaries  of  life  as  it  did  before.  The 
wrong  is  therefore  inflicted  on  the  laborer  long  before  his  in- 
come can  be  adjusted  to  his  increased  expenses.  It  was  in  view 
of  this  truth  that  Daniel  Webster  said  in  one  of  his  ablest 
speeches :  "  Of  all  the  contrivances  for  cheating  the  laboring 
classes  of  mankind,  none  has  been  more  effectual  than  that 
which  deludes  them  with  paper  money.  This  is  the  most  effect- 
ual of  inventions  to  fertilize  the  rich  man's  field  by  the  sweat  of 
the  poor  man's  brow.  Ordinary  tyranny,  oppression,  excessive 
taxation,  —  these  bear  lightly  on  the  happiness  of  the  mass  of 
the  community,  compared  with  a  fraudulent  currency  and  the 
robberies  committed  by  depreciated  paper."  ^ 

The  fraud  committed  and  the  burdens  imposed  upon  the 
people,  in  the  case  we  have  supposed,  would  be  less  intolerable 
if  all  business  transactions  could  be  really  adjusted  to  the  new 
conditions;  but  even  this  is  impossible.  All  debts  would  be 
cancelled,  all  contracts  fulfilled,  by  payment  in  these  notes, — 
not  at  their  real  value,  but  for  their  face.  All  salaries  fixed  by 
law,  the  pay  of  every  soldier  in  the  army,  of  every  sailor  in  the 
navy,  and  all  pensions  and  bounties,  would  be  reduced  to  half 
their  former  value.  In  these  cases  the  effect  is  only  injurious. 
Let  it  never  be  forgotten  that  every  depreciation  of  our  cur- 
rency results  in  robbing  the  one  hundred  and  eighty  thousand 
pensioners,  maimed  heroes,  crushed  and  bereaved  widows,  and 
homeless  orphans,  who  sit  helpless  at  our  feet.  And  who  would 
be  benefited  by  this  policy?  A  pretence  of  apology  might  be 
offered  for  it  if  the  government  could  save  what  the  people  lose. 
But  the  system  lacks  the  support  of  even  that  selfish  and  im- 
moral consideration.  The  depreciation  caused  by  the  over-issue 
in  the  case  wc  have  supposed,  compels  the  government  to  pay 
just  that  per  cent  more  on  all  the  contracts  it  makes,  on  all  the 
loans  it  negotiates,  on  all  the  supplies  it  purchases;  and  to 
crown  all,  it  must  at  last  redeem  all  its  legal-tender  notes  in  gold 
coin,  dollar  for  dollar.  And  yet  the  advocates  of  repudiation 
have  been  bold  enough  to  deny  this ! 

I  have  thus  far  considered  the  influence  of  a  redundant  paper 
currency  on  the  country  when  its  trade  and  industry  are  in  a 
healthy  and  normal  state.  I  now  call  attention  to  its  effect  in 
producing  an  unhealthy  expansion  of  business,  in  stimulating 
speculation  and  extravagance,  and  in  laying  the  sure  foundation 

1  Works.  Vol.  III.  p.  395. 


THE  CURRENCY.  297 

of  commercial  revulsion  and  wide-spread  ruin.  This  principle 
is  too  well  understood  to  require  any  elaboration  here.  The 
history  of  all  modern  nations  is  full  of  examples.  One  of  the 
ablest  American  writers  on  banks  and  banking,  Mr.  Gouge,  thus 
sums  up  the  result  of  his  researches:  "The  history  of  all  our 
bank  pressures  and  panics  has  been  the  same,  in  1825,  in  1837, 
and  in  1 843  ;  and  the  cause  is  given  in  these  two  simple  words, 
universal  expansion."  And  such  is  the  testimony  of  all  the 
highest  authorities. 

There  still  remains  to  be  considered  the  effect  of  depreciated 
currency  on  our  trade  with  other  nations.  By  raising  prices  at 
home  higher  than  they  are  abroad,  imports  are  largely  increased 
beyond  the  exports ;  our  coin  goes  abroad,  or,  what  is  far  worse 
for  us,  our  bonds,  which  have  also  suffered  depreciation,  go 
abroad,  and  are  purchased  by  foreigners  at  seventy  cents  on  the 
dollar.  During  the  whole  period  of  high  prices  occasioned  by 
the  war,  gold  and  bonds  have  been  steadily  going  abroad,  not- 
withstanding our  tariff  duties,  which  average  nearly  fifty  per  cent 
ad  valorem.  More  than  five  hundred  million  dollars  of  our  bonds 
are  now  held  in  Europe,  ready  to  be  thrown  back  upon  us  when 
any  war  or  other  sufficient  disturbance  shall  occur.  No  tariff 
rates  short  of  actual  prohibition  can  prevent  this  outflow  of  gold 
while  our  currency  is  thus  depreciated.  During  these  years,  also, 
our  merchant  marine  steadily  decreased,  and  our  shipbuilding 
interests  were  nearly  ruined.  Our  tonnage  engaged  in  foreign 
trade,  which  amounted  in  1859-60  to  more  than  two  and  a  half 
million  tons,  had  fallen  in  1865-66  to  less  than  one  and  a  half 
millions,  a  decrease  of  more  than  fifty  per  cent ;  and  prices  of 
labor  and  material  are  still  too  hfgh  to  enable  our  shipwrights 
to  compete  with  foreign  builders. 

From  the  facts  already  exhibited  in  reference  to  our  industrial 
revolution,  and  from  the  foregoing  analysis  of  the  nature  and 
functions  of  currency,  it  is  manifest,  — 

1.  That  the  remarkable  prosperity  of  all  industrial  enter- 
prise during  the  war  was  not  caused  by  the  abundance  of  cur- 
rency, but  by  the  unparalleled  demand  for  every  product  of 
labor. 

2.  That  the  great  depression  of  business,  the  stagnation  of 
trade,  the  hard  times  which  have  prevailed  during  the  past 
year,  and  which  still  prevail,  have  not  been  caused  by  an  insuffi- 
cient amount  of  currency,  but  mainly  by  the  great  falling  off  of 


2p8 


THE  CURRENCY. 


the  demand  for  all  the  products  of  labor  compared  with  the 
increased  supply  since  the  return  from  war  to  peace. 

I  should  be  satisfied  to  rest  on  these  propositions  without 
further  argument,  were  it  not  that  the  declaration  is  so  often  and 
so  confidently  made  by  members  of  this  House,  that  there  is  not 
only  no  excess  of  currency,  but  that  there  is  not  enough  for  the 
business  of  the  country.  I  subjoin  a  table,  carefully  made  up 
from  the  official  records,  showing  the  amount  of  paper  money 
in  the  United  States  at  the  beginning  of  each  year  from  1834  to 
1868,  inclusive.     The  fractions  of  millions  are  omitted. 


Millions. 

Millions. 

Millions. 

Millions. 

1834  .  . 

95 

1843  • 

•   59 

1852  . 

.   150 

1861   . 

202 

183s  .  • 

104 

1844  . 

•   75 

1853  . 

146 

1862  . 

.   218 

1836  .  . 

140 

1845  . 

•   90 

1854  . 

205 

1863   .  . 

529 

1837  .  . 

-  149 

1846  . 

.  105 

1855  . 

.   187 

1864  . 

.   636 

1838  . 

.  116 

1847  ■ 

.  106 

1856  . 

.   196 

1865  . 

948 

1839  . 

•  '35 

1848  . 

.  129 

1857  . 

.   215 

1866  . 

.  919 

1840  .  . 

.  107 

1849  • 

.  115 

1858  . 

•  '35 

1867   . 

.  852 

I84I  . 

.  107 

1850  . 

•  13' 

1859  .  . 

'93 

1868  . 

767 

1842  . 

.   84 

1851  . 

•  '55 

i860  .  . 

207 

To  obtain  a  full  exhibit  of  the  circulating  medium  of  the 
country  for  these  years,  it  would  be  necessary  to  add  to  the 
above  the  amount  of  coin  in  circulation  each  year.  This  amount 
cannot  be  ascertained  with  accuracy ;  but  it  is  the  opinion  of 
those  best  qualified  to  judge  that  there  was  about  $200,000,000 
of  gold  and  silver  coin  in  the  United  States  at  the  beginning 
of  the  rebellion.  It  is  officially  known  that  the  amount  held 
by  the  banks  from  i860  to  1863  inclusive  averaged  about 
$97,000,000.  Including  bank  reserves,  the  total  circulation  of 
coin  and  paper  never  exceeded  $400,000,000  before  the  war. 
Excluding  the  bank  reserves,  the  amount  was  never  much  above 
$300,000,000.  During  the  twenty-six  years  preceding  the  war, 
the  average  bank  circulation  was  less  than  $139,000,000. 

It  is  estimated  that  the  amount  of  coin  now  in  the  United 
States  is  not  less  than  $250,000,000.  When  it  is  remembered 
that  there  are  now  $106,000,000  of  coin  in  the  Treasury,  that 
customs  duties  and  interest  on  the  public  debt  are  paid  in  coin 
alone,  and  that  the  currency  of  the  States  and  Territories  of  the 
Pacific  coast  is  wholly  metallic,  it  will  be  seen  that  a  large  sum 
of  gold  and  silver  must  be  added  to  the  volume  of  paper  cur- 
rency in  order  to  ascertain  the  whole  amount  of  our  circula- 
tion.    It  cannot   be   successfully  controverted   that   the   gold, 


THE  CURRENCY.  299 

silver,  and  paper  used  as  money  in  this  country  at  this  time 
amount  to  $i,ooo,cxx),cxx).  If  we  subtract  from  this  amount  our 
bank  reserves,  —  which  amounted  on  the  ist  of  January  last  to 
$162,500,000,  and  also  the  cash  in  the  national  treasury,  which 
at  that  time  amounted  to  $134,000,000,  —  we  still  have  left  in 
active  circulation  more  than  seven  hundred  million  dollars. 

It  rests  with  those  who  assert  that  our  present  amount  of 
currency  is  insufficient,  to  show  that  one  hundred  and  fifty  per 
cent  more  currency  is  now  needed  for  the  business  of  the  coun- 
try than  was  needed  in  i860.  To  escape  this  difficulty,  it  has 
been  asserted  by  some  honorable  members  that  the  country 
never  had  currency  enough,  and  that  credit  was  substituted 
before  the  war  to  supply  the  lack  of  money.  It  is  a  perfect 
answer  to  this  that  in  many  of  the  States  a  system  of  free  bank- 
ing prevailed ;  and  such  banks  pushed  into  circulation  all  the 
money  they  could  find  a  market  for. 

The  table  I  have  submitted  shows  how  perfect  an  index  the 
currency  is  of  the  healthy  or  unhealthy  condition  of  business, 
and  that  every  great  financial  crisis  for  the  period  covered  by 
the  table  has  been  preceded  by  a  great  increase  and  followed  by 
a  great  and  sudden  decrease  in  the  volume  of  paper  money. 
The  rise  and  fall  of  mercury  in  the  barometer  is  not  more  surely 
indicative  of  an  atmospheric  storm  than  a  sudden  increase  or 
decrease  of  currency  is  indicative  of  financial  disaster.  Within 
the  period  covered  by  the  table  there  were  four  financial  and 
commercial  crises  in  this  country.  They  occurred  in  1837, 
1841,  1854,  and  1857.  Now  observe  the  change  in  the  volume 
of  paper  currency  for  those  years. 

On  the  1st  day  of  January,  1837,  ^^  amount  had  risen  to 
$149,000,000,  an  increase  of  nearly  fifty  per  cent  in  three  years. 
Before  the  end  of  that  year,  the  reckless  expansion,  speculation, 
and  overtrading  which  caused  the  increase,  had  resulted  in  terri- 
ble collapse;  and  on  the  ist  of  January,  1838,  the  volume  was 
reduced  to  $1 16,000,000.  Wild  lands,  which  speculation  had 
raised  to  fifteen  and  twenty  dollars  per  acre,  fell  to  one  dollar  and 
a  half  and  two  dollars,  accompanied  by  a  corresponding  depres- 
sion in  all  branches  of  business.  Immediately  after  the  crisis  of 
1841  the  bank  circulation  decreased  twenty-five  percent,  and  by 
the  end  of  1842  was  reduced  to  $58,500,000,  a  decrease  of  nearly 
fifty  per  cent. 

At  the  beginning   of   1853  the  amount  was    $146,000,000. 


>w 


THE  CURRENCY. 


S|>cciiIation  and  expansion  had  swelled  it  to  $205,000,000  by 
the  end  of  that  year,  and  thus  introduced  .the  crash  of  1854. 
At  the  beginning  of  1857  the  paper  money  of  the  country 
reuched  its  highest  point  of  inflation  up  to  that  time.  There 
wuii  nearly  $2 1 5  »ooo,ooo,  but  at  the  end  of  that  disastrous  year 
the  volume  had  fallen  to  $135,000,000,  a  decrease  of  nearly  forty 
per  cent  in  less  than  twelve  months.  In  the  great  crashes  pre- 
ceding 1837  the  same  conditions  are  invariably  seen,  —  great 
expansion,  followed  by  a  violent  collapse,  not  only  in  paper 
money,  but  in  loans  and  discounts ;  and  those  manifestations 
have  always  been  accompanied  by  a  corresponding  fluctuation 
in  prices.  In  the  great  crash  of  18 19,  one  of  the  severest  this 
country  ever  sufiered,  there  was  a  complete  prostration  of  busi- 
ness. It  is  recorded  in  Niles's  Register  for  1820  that  in  that 
year  an  Ohio  miller  sold  four  barrels  of  flour  to  raise  five  dol- 
lars, the  amount  of  his  subscription  to  that  paper.  Wheat  was 
twenty  cents  per  bushel  and  corn  ten  cents.  About  the  same 
time  Mr.  Jefferson  wrote  to  Nathaniel  Macon :  "  We  have  now 
no  standard  of  value.  I  am  asked  eighteen  dollars  for  a  yard  of 
broadcloth  which,  when  we  had  dollars,  I  used  to  get  for  eighteen 
shillings." 

But  the  advocates  of  paper-money  expansion  answer  us :  It 
makes  no  difference  what  your  reasoning  may  be ;  we  allege  the 
fact  that  there  is  great  stringency  in  our  money  market,  great 
depression  in  business,  and  the  high  rate  of  interest  everywhere 
demanded,  especially  in  the  West,  proves  conclusively  that  an 
increase  of  currency  is  needed. 

The  relation  of  business  to  the  supply  of  money  and  to  the 
rate  of  interest  has  never  been  so  strikingly  illustrated  as  in 
the  financial  and  business  history  of  Europe  during  the  past 
two  years.  At  the  beginning  of  1866  there  was  great  activity 
and  apparent  prosperity  in  the  business  of  Europe.  It  was  a 
period  of  speculation  and  overtrading.  About  the  middle  of 
that  year  the  depression  commenced,  which  has  continued  and 
increased  till  now,  when  the  distress  is  greater  and  more  wide- 
spread than  it  has  been  for  a  quarter  of  a  century.  From  May, 
1866,  to  the  present  time,  the  rate  of  interest  in  the  principal 
money  centres  of  Europe  has  been  steadily  decreasing.  The 
following  table,  collated  from  the  London  Economist,  exhibits 
the  fact  that  the  average  decline  in  nine  kingdoms  of  Europe  is 
fifty  per  cent. 


THE  CURRENCY. 


301 


RATE  OF  INTEREST. 


May,  1866. 
Per  cent. 

London  7 

Paris 4 

Berlin 5 

Vienna 7 

Frankfort    ....  6 

Amsterdam      .    .    .  6^ 


March,  1868. 
Per  cent 

2 
li 

3 

4 

3 


May,  1866.    March,  1868. 
Per  cent.         Per  cent. 


Turin  .  .  . 
Madrid .  .  . 
Brussels  .  . 
Hamburg  .  . 
St.  Petersburg 


6 

9 

S 
7 
7 


5 

5 

2 
2 

8 


It  will  be  noticed  that  the  rate  is  lowest  in  specie-paying 
countries,  and  highest  where  there  is  a  large  volume  of  depre- 
ciated paper  money,  as  in  Russia,  Spain,  and  Italy.  But  the 
important  fact  exhibited  in  this  table  is,  that  as  commercial 
distress  has  increased,  the  rate  of  interest  has  decreased,  and 
that  hard  times  have  been  accompanied  by  an  abundant  sup- 
ply of  money.  It  would  be  as  reasonable  for  an  Englishman 
to  assert  that  the  distress  and  stagnation  of  business  there 
has  been  caused  by  the  plethora  of  money  and  the  low  rate  of 
interest,  as  for  us  to  claim  that  our  distress  is  caused  by  an  in- 
sufficient currency  and  a  high  rate  of  interest.  There,  as  here, 
the  distress  was  caused  by  overproduction  and  overtrading. 
England  thought  to  grow  rich  out  of  our  misfortunes,  and,  in  her 
greed,  overreached  herself  and  brought  misery  and  ruin  upon 
millions  of  her  people.  As  a  specimen  of  her  crazy  expansion 
of  business,  witness  the  fact  that  in  the  years  1863,  1864,  and 
1865,  in  addition  to  all  other  enterprises,  there  were  organized 
eight  hundred  and  thirty-two  joint-stock  companies,  with  an 
authorized  capital  of  ;^363,ooo,cxx)  sterling.  During  1866  and 
1867,  there  were  organized  but  seventy-one  such  companies, 
with  an  authorized  capital  of  less  than  ;^  16,500,000  sterling. 

The  Bankers'  Magazine  of  London,  for  May,  1867,  says: 
**  In  the  vaults  of  the  Bank  of  England,  the  Bank  of  France, 
and  in  Amsterdam,  Frankfort,  Hamburg,  and  Berlin,  there  are 
^75,000,000;  the  rate  of  discount  averages  three  per  cent, 
and  is  tending  downward ;  yet  in  each  and  every  one  of  these 
cities  complaints  of  the  scarcity  of  money  were  never  more 
rife."  At  the  end  of  1867,  the  same  Magazine  says,  there  were 
^^23, 500,000  sterling  gold  in  the  Bank  of  England,  besides 
j^i4,ooo,ooo  of  coin  and  paper  reserves,  but  "  not  the  slightest 
life  in  trade."  The  London  Times  of  December  20,  1867,  says: 
"  We  are  now  paying  the  penalty  of  wild  speculation  and  over- 
trading.    For  eighteen  months,  all  but  the  ordinary  business  of 


302  THE  CURRENCY. 

the  country  is  at  a  stand-still Millions  on  millions  an 

lying  useless  in  the  various  banks  of  the  country  because  the 
owners  of  the  money  cannot  yet  prevail  upon  themselves  tc 
trust  it  in  any  of  the  ordinary  investments." 

From  these  facts  it  is  evident  that  those  who  attribute  oui 
hard  times  to  a  reduction  of  the  currency  will  find  themselve* 
unable  to  explain  the  hard  times  in  Europe. 

We  are  constantly  reminded  that  the  country  was  prosperous 
at  the  beginning  of  1866,  before  the  currency  was  reduced,  bu 
is  in  distress  since  the  reduction;  and  these  two  facts  are  as- 
sumed to  sustain  the  relation  to  each  other  of  cause  and  effect 
Now  let  it  be  observed  that  since  January,  1866,  the  volume  o 
paper  currency  has  been  reduced  sixteen  and  a  half  per  cent 
but  during  the  same  time  there  has  been  an  average  decline  ir 
prices  of  not  less  than  twenty  per  cent ;  that  is,  eighty  cents  ir 
currency  will  purchase  as  many  commodities  now  as  a  dollai 
would  two  years  ago ;  and  there  is  eighty-three  and  a  half  cents 
in  currency  now  to  every  dollar  then.  The  gold  value  of  oui 
whole  volume  of  currency  in  January,  1868,  was  but  three  anc 
two  thirds  per  cent  less  than  the  gold  value  of  the  whole  vol 
ume  in  January,  1866.  The  advocates  of  expansion  shoulc 
prove  that  there  has  been  a  reduction  in  the  purchasing  powei 
of  our  currency  before  they  deplore  the  fact. 

That  there  is  an  apparent  stringency  in  our  money  markei 
generally,  and  a  relative  scarcity  of  currency  in  the  VVest,  can- 
not be  doubted.  During  the  past  winter,  especially,  it  has  beer 
and  still  is  very  difficult  in  the  West  to  obtain  money  on  gooc 
business  paper.  The  causes  of  this  are  to  be  found  in  the 
improper  adjustment  of  our  financial  machinery,  and  in  the 
great  uncertainty  attending  our  financial  legislation.  It  is  i 
Well-settled  principle  that  an  irredeemable  currency  tends  tc 
find  its  way  to  the  money  centres,  and  stay  there.  Most  unfor- 
tunately for  the  interest  of  the  country,  the  national  banks  have 
been  allowed  to  receive  interest  on  the  deposits  they  make  ir 
the  banks  at  the  great  money  centres.  Most  of  the  country 
banks,  therefore,  send  all  their  surplus  funds  to  New  York,  anc 
will  not  loan  money  unless  they  can  receive  a  higher  rate  thar 
is  paid  them  there.  For  all  practical  purposes  their  notes  arc 
equal  to  greenbacks,  and  they  are  never  called  upon  to  redeerr 
them.  Thus  we  have  a  plethora  of  money  in  New  York  and  a 
few  other  cities,  and  a  scarcity  in  the  country.     We  are  finan- 


THE   CURRENCY.  303 

cially  in  the  condition  of  a  sick  man  suffering  with  congestive 
chilis ;  the  blood  rushes  to  the  heart,  and  leaves  the  extremities 
chilled  and  paralyzed. 

The  fluctuation  of  values  caused  by  the  uncertainty  of  our 
situation  offers  a  great  temptation  to  engage  in  stock  and  gold 
speculation ;  and  hence  men  who  would  otherwise  be  honest 
producers  of  wealth  rush  to  the  gold-room  or  the  stock-market 
and  become  the  most  desperate  of  gamblers,  putting  up  for- 
tunes to  be  lost  or  won  on  the  chances  of  a  day.  These  men 
pay  enormous  margins  on  their  purchases  and  extravagant 
interest  on  their  loans.  There  are  tons  of  paper  money  at  the 
great  commercial  centres,  to  which  it  flows  from  all  quarters  to 
meet  the  insane  demands  of  Wall  Street.  Recently  a  clique  of 
these  operators  locked  up  $25,000,000  of  greenbacks,  and  upon 
them,  as  a  special  deposit,  borrowed  $20,000,000  more  for  the 
purpose  of  creating  a  sudden  stringency  in  the  money  market 
and  placing  gold  and  stocks  at  their  mercy.  The  vast  amount 
of  money  daily  loaned  on  call  in  Wall  Street,  at  a  high  rate  of 
interest,  shows  how  the  currency  of  the  country  is  being  used. 
So  long  as  the  national  government  takes  no  steps  toward  re- 
deeming its  own  paper,  so  long  will  there  be  nothing  to  call 
the  notes  of  the  country  banks  back  home ;  so  long  will  there 
be  no  healthy  and  equal  circulation  of  the  currency.  If 
$200,000,000  more  currency  were  now  issued,  I  do  not  doubt 
that  within  two  months  there  would  be  the  same  want  of  money 
in  the  rural  districts  that  now  prevails.  The  surplus  would  flow 
to  the  money  centres,  and  the  increased  prices  would  make  our 
condition  worse  than  before.  It  ought  not  to  be  forgotten  that 
while  the  capitalist  and  speculator  are  able  to  take  advantage 
of  fluctuations  in  prices,  the  poor  man  has  no  such  power. 
The  necessities  of  life  he  must  buy  day  by  day,  whatever  the 
price  may  be.  He  offers  for  sale  only  his  labor.  That  he  must 
sell  each  day.  or  it  will  be  wholly  lost.  He  is  absolutely  at 
the  mercy  of  the  market. 

But  the  most  serious  evil  growing  out  of  the  condition  of  our 
currency  is  the  fact  that  we  have  now  no  fixed  and  determinate 
standard,  of  value.  It  is  scarcely  possible  to  exaggerate  this 
evil.  If  a  snowball,  made  at  the  beginning  of  winter  and  ex- 
posed to  freezing  and  thawing,  snowfall  and  rainfall,  weighed 
every  day  at  noon,  were  made  the  lawful  pound  avoirdupois  for 
this  country  during  the  winter,  we  can  hardly  conceive  the  con- 


304  THE  CURRENCY. 

fusion  and  injustice  that  would  attend  all  transactions  depending 
on  weight.  The  evil,  however,  would  not  be  universal.  Linear, 
liquid,  and  many  other  measures  would  not  be  affected  by  it. 
But  a  change  of  the  money  standard  reaches  all  values.  No 
transaction  escapes.  The  money  unit  is  the  universal  measure 
of  value  throughout  the  world.  Since  the  dawn  of  civilization, 
the  science,  the  art,  the  statesmanship  of  the  world,  have  been 
put  in  requisition  to  devise  and  maintain  an  unvarying,  and,  as 
far  as  possible,  an  invariable  standard.  For  thousands  of  years 
gold  and  silver  of  a  certain  weight  and  fineness  have  been 
adopted  as  the  nearest  approach  to  perfection;  but  even  the 
slight  variation  in  value  to  which  coin  is  subject  from  clipping 
and  wear  has  brought  nations  to  the  verge  of  revolution.  No 
one  can  read  Macaulay's  account  of  the  recoinage  in  England,  in 
the  days  of  William  and  Mary,  without  perceiving  how  directly 
the  happiness  and  prosperity  of  a  nation  depend  upon  the 
stability  of  its  money  unit.  He  says,  "  It  may  well  be  doubted 
whether  all  the  misery  which  had  been  inflicted  on  the  English 
nation  in  a  quarter  of  a  century  by  bad  kings,  bad  ministers, 
bad  Parliaments,  and  bad  judges,  was  equal  to  the  misery 
caused  in  a  single  year  by  bad  crowns  and  bad  shillings.'*  ^ 

To  rescue  the  nation  from  the  evils  of  bad  shillings,  Newton 
was  called  from  his  high  realm  of  discovery,  Locke  from  his 
profound  meditations,  Somers  and  Montague  from  their  seats  in 
Parliament,  and  these  illustrious  men  spent  months  in  most 
devoted  effort  to  restore  to  the  realm  its  standard  of  value. 
What  could  now  be  of  greater  service  to  our  country  than  to 
direct  its  highest  wisdom  and  statesmanship  to  the  restoration 
of  our  standard?  For  three  quarters  of  a  century  the  dollar 
has  been  our  universal  measure.  A  coin  containing  23^^^ 
grains  of  pure  gold  stamped  at  the  national  mint  has  been  our- 
only  definition  of  the  word  dollar.  The  dollar  is  the  gauge 
that  measures  every  blow  of  the  axe,  every  swing  of  the  scythe, 
every  stroke  of  the  hammer,  every  fagot  that  blazes  on  the 
poor  man's  hearth,  every  fabric  that  clothes  his  children,  every 
mouthful  that  feeds  their  hunger.  The  word  dollar  is  the 
substantive  word,  —  the  fundamental  condition  of  every  con- 
tract, of  every  sale,  of  every  payment,  whether  from  the 
national  Treasury  or  from  the  stand  of  the  apple- woman  in  the 
street     Now,  what  is  our  situation?     There  has  been  no  day 

\  1  History,  Vol.  IV.  p.  498  (Harper's  ed.). 


THE  CURRENCY.  305 

since  the  25th  of  February,   1862,  when  any  man  could   tell 
what  would  be  the  value  of  our  legal-currency  dollar  the  next 
month  or  the  next  day.     Since  that  day  we  have  substituted 
for  a  dollar  the  printed  promise  of  the  government  to  pay  a 
dollar.     That  promise  we  have  broken.     We  have  suspended 
payment,  and  have  by  law  compelled   the  citizen   to   receive 
dishonored  paper  in  place  of  money.     The  value  of  the  paper 
standard  thus  forced  upon  the  country  by  the  necessities  of  the 
war  has  changed  every  day,  and  almost  every  hour  of  the  day, 
for  six  years.     The  value  of  our  paper  dollar  has  passed  by 
thousands   of  fluctuations   from  one  hundred  cents  to  thirty- 
five  cents,  and  back  again  to  seventy.     During  the  war,  in  the 
midst  of  high  prices  and  large  profits,  this  fluctuation  was  tol- 
erable.    Now  that  we  are  making  our  way  back  toward  old 
prices  and  more  moderate  gains,  now  that  the  pressure  of  hard 
times  is  upon  us,  this  uncertainty  in  our  standard  of  value  is  an 
almost  intolerable  evil.     The  currency,  not  being  based  upon 
a  foundation  of  real  and  certain  value,  and  possessing  no  ele- 
ment of  self-adjustment,  depends  for  its  market  value  on  a  score 
of  causes.      It  is  a  significant   and   humiliating  fact  that   the 
business  men  of  the  nation  are  in  constant  dread  of  Congress. 
Will  Congress  increase  the  currency,  or  contract  it?     Will  new 
greenbacks  be  issued  with  which  to  take  up  the  bonds,  or  will 
new  bonds  be  issued  to  absorb  the  greenbacks?     Will  the  na- 
tional banking  system  be  perpetuated  and  enlarged,  or  will  it 
be  abolished  to  enable  the  general  government  to  turn  banker? 
These  and  a  score  of  kindred  questions  are  agitating  the  public 
mind,  and  changing  our  standard  of  value  with  every  new  turn 
Jn  the  tide  of  Congressional  opinion.     Monday  is  a  dangerous 
day  for  the  business  of  this  country  while  Congress  is  in  ses- 
sion.     The  broadside    of  financial  resolutions  fired    from  this 
House  on  that  day  could  have  no  such  effect  as  it  now  produces, 
if  our  currency  were  based  on  a  firm  foundation. 

Observe  how  the  people  pay  for  this  fluctuation  of  values. 
Importers,  wholesale  merchants,  and  manufacturers,  knowing 
the  uncertainties  of  trade  which  result  from  this  changeable 
standard,  raise  their  prices  to  cover  risks ;  the  same  thing  is 
done  again  by  retail  dealers  and  middle-men ;  and  the  whole 
burden  falls  at  last  upon  the  consumer, — the  laboring  man. 
And   yet  we   hear   honorable   gentlemen   singing  the   praises 

of  cheap  money !     The  vital  and  incurable  evil  of  an  inconvert- 
voL.  I.  20 


306  THE  CURRENCY. 

ible  paper  currency  is  that  it  has  no  elasticity,  —  no  quality 
whereby  it  adjusts  itself  to  the  necessities  and  contingencies  of 
business. 

But  there  is  one  quality  of  such  a  currency  more  remarkable 
than  all  others,  —  its  strange  power  to  delude  men.  The  spells 
and  enchantments  of  legendary  witchcraft  were  hardly  so  won- 
derful. Most  delusions  cannot  be  repeated,  —  they  lose  their 
power  after  a  full  exposure ;  but  not  so  with  irredeemable  paper 
money.  From  the  days  of  John  Law  its  history  has  been  a 
repetition  of  the  same  story,  with  only  this  difference :  no  nation 
now  resorts  to  its  use  except  from  overwhelming  necessity ;  but 
whenever  any  nation  is  fairly  embarked,  it  floats  on  the  delusive 
waves,  and,  like  the  lotus-eating  companions  of  Ulysses,  wishes 
to  return  home  no  more. 

Into  this  very  delusion  many  of  our  fellow-citizens  and  many 
members  of  this  House  have  fallen.  Hardly  a  member  of  either 
House  of  the  Thirty-seventh  or  Thirty-eighth  Congress  spoke 
on  the  subject  who  did  not  deplore  the  necessity  of  resorting 
to  inconvertible  paper  money,  and  protest  against  its  continu- 
ance a  single  day  beyond  the  inexorable  necessities  of  the  war. 
The  remarks  of  Mr.  Fessenden,  when  he  reported  the  first  legal- 
tender  bill  from  the  Finance  Committee  of  the  Senate,  in  Feb- 
ruary, 1862,  fully  exhibit  the  sentiment  of  Congress  at  that  time. 
He  assured  the  country  that  the  measure  was  not  to  be  resorted 
to  as  a  policy ;  that  it  was  what  it  professed  to  be,  a  temporary 
expedient;  that  he  agreed  with  the  declaration  of  the  chairman 
of  the  Committee  of  Ways  and  Means  of  the  House,  that  it  was 
not  contemplated  to  issue  more  than  $1 50,000,000  of  legal-tender 
notes.  Though  he  aided  in  passing  the  bill,  he  uttered  a  warning, 
the  truth  and  force  of  which  few  then  questioned.     He  said :  — 

"  All  the  opinions  that  I  have  heard  expressed  agree  in  this,  that  only 
with  extreme  reluctance,  only  with  fear  and  trembling  as  to  the  conse- 
quences, can  we  have  recourse  to  a  measure  like  this  of  making  our  paper 
a  legal  tender  in  the  payment  of  debts 

"  All  the  gentlemen  who  have  spoken  on  the  subject,  and  all  pretty 
much  who  have  written  on  the  subject,  except  some  wild  speculators  in 
currency,  have  declared  that,  as  a  policy,  it  would  be  ruinous  to  any 
people ;  and  it  has  been  defended,  as  I  have  stated,  simply  and  solely 
upon  the  ground  that  it  is  to  be  a  single  measure  standing  by  itself,  and 
not  to  be  repeated 

"  Again,  sir,  it  necessarily  changes  the  values  of  all  property.  It  is 
very  well  known  that  all  over  the  world  gold  and  silver  are  recognized  as 


THE  CURRENCY,  307 

money,  as  currency ;  they  are  the  measure  of  value.  We  change  it  here. 
What  is  the  result?  Inflation,  subsequent  depression,  —  all  the  evils 
which  follow  from  an  inflated  currency.  They  cannot  be  avoided ;  they 
are  inevitable ;  the  consequence  is  admitted.  Although  the  notes,  to  be 
sure,  pass  precisely  at  par,  gold  appreciates,  property  appreciates,  —  all 
kinds  of  property."  ^ 

This,  I  repeat,  was  the  almost  unanimous  sentiment  of  the 
Thirty-seventh  Congress;  and  though  subsequent  necessity 
compelled  both  that  and  the  Thirty-eighth  Congress  to  make 
new  issues  of  paper,  yet  the  danger  was  always  confessed,  and 
the  policy  and  purpose  of  speedy  resumption  were  kept  steadily 
in  view.  So  anxious  were  the  members  of  the  Thirty-eighth 
Congress  that  the  temptation  to  new  issues  should  not  over- 
come them  or  their  successors,  that  they  bound  themselves  by  a 
kind  of  financial  temperance  pledge  that  there  never  should  be 
a  further  increase  of  legal-tender  notes.  Witness  the  following 
clause  of  the  Loan  Act  of  June  30,  1864:  — 

"Sec.  2.  .  .  .  /y^/V/<f^,  That  the  total  amount  of  bonds  and  Treasury 
notes  authorized  by  the  first  and  second  sections  of  this  act  shall  not 
excee.d  ^400,000,000  in  addition  to  the  amounts  heretofore  issued  ;  nor 
shall  the  total  amount  of  United  States  notes,  issued  or  to  be  issued, 
ever  exceed  ^400,000,000,  and  such  additional  sum,  not  exceeding 
$50,000,000,  as  may  be  temporarily  required  for  the  redemption  of 
temporary  loan." 

Here  is  a  solemn  pledge  to  the  public  creditors,  a  compact 
with  them,  that  the  government  will  never  issue  non-intcrest- 
paying  notes  beyond  the  sum  total  of  $450,000,000.  When  the 
war  ended,  the  Thirty-ninth  Congress,  adopting  the  views  of  its 
predecessors  on  this  subject,  regarded  the  legal-tender  currency 
a  part  of  the  war  machinery,  and  proceeded  to  reduce  and  with- 
draw it  in  the  same  manner  in  which  the  army  and  navy  and 
other  accompaniments  of  the  war  were  reduced.  Ninety-five 
gentlemen  who  now  occupy  seats  in  this  Hall  were  members  of 
this  House  on  the  i8th  of  December,  1865,  when  it  was  resolved, 
by  a  vote  of  144  yeas  to  6  nays,  — 

"  That  this  House  cordially  concurs  in  the  views  of  the  Secretary  of 
the  Treasury  in  relation  to  the  necessity  of  a  contraction  of  the  currency 
with  a  view  to  as  early  a  resumption  of  specie  pa)Tnents  as  the  business 
interests  of  the  country  will  permit ;  and  we  hereby  pledge  co-operative 
action  to  this  end  as  speedily  as  practicable." 

*  Congressional  Globe,  Feb.  12,  1862,  pp.  763-765. 


308  THE  CURRENCY. 

Since  the  passage  of  that  resolution,  the  currency  has  been 
reduced  by  an  amount  less  than  one  sixth  of  its  volume,  and 
what  magic  wonders  have  been  wrought  in  the  opinions  of  mem- 
bers of  this  House  and  among  the  financial  philosophers  of  the 
country?  A  score  of  honorable  gentlemen  have  exhausted 
their  eloquence  in  singing  the  praises  of  greenbacks.  They 
insist  that,  at  the  very  least.  Congress  should  at  once  set  the 
printing-presses  in  motion  to  restore  the  $70,000,000  of  national 
treasure  so  ruthlessly  reduced  to  ashes  by  the  incendiary  torch 
of  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury.  One,  claiming  that  this  would 
be  a  poor  and  meagre  offering  to  the  offended  paper  god,  intro- 
duces a  bill  to  print  and  issue  $140,000,000  more.  The  phi- 
losopher of  Lewiston,  the  Democratic  representative  of  the  Ninth 
District  of  Illinois,^  thinks  that  a  new  issue  of  $700,000,000  will 
for  the  present  meet  the  wants  of  the  country.  Another,  per- 
ceiving that  the  national-bank  notes  are  dividing  the  honors 
with  greenbacks,  proposes  to  abolish  these  offending  corpora- 
tions, and,  in  lieu  of  their  notes,  issue  $300,000,000  in  green- 
backs, and  thus  increase  the  active  circulation  by  over  one 
hundred  millions,  —  the  amount  now  held  as  bank  reserves. 
And,  finally,  the  Democratic  masses  of  the  West  are  rallying 
under  the  leadership  of  the  coming  man,  the  young  statesman 
of  Cincinnati,  who  proposes  to  cancel  with  greenbacks  the 
$1,500,000,000  of  five-twenty  bonds,  and  with  his  election  to  the 
Presidency  usher  in  the  full  millennial  glory  of  paper  money ! 
And  this  is  the  same  George  H.  Pendleton  who  denounced  as 
unconstitutional  the  law  which  authorized  the  first  issue  of 
greenbacks,  and  concluded  an  elaborate  speech  against  the 
passage  of  the  bill  in  1862  with  these  words:  — 

"  You  send  these  notes  out  into  the  world  stamped  with  irredeem- 
ability.  You  put  on  them  the  mark  of  Cain,  and,  like  Cain,  they  will  go 
forth  to  be  vagabonds  and  fugitives  on  the  earth.  What,  then,  will  be 
the  consequence  ?  It  requires  no  prophet  to  tell  what  will  be  their  his- 
tory. The  currency  will  be  expanded  \  prices  will  be  inflated ;  fixed 
values  will  depreciate ;  incomes  will  be  diminished ;  the  savings  of  the 
poor  will  vanish ;  the  hoardings  of  the  \vidow  will  melt  away ;  bonds, 
mortgages,  and  notes,  everything  of  fixed  value,  will  lose  their  value  ; 
everything  of  changeable  value  will  be  appreciated ;  the  necessaries  of 
life  will  rise  in  value Contraction  will  follow.     Private  ruin  and 

public  bankruptcy,  either  with  or  without  repudiation,  will  inevitably 
foUow."2 

1  Mr.  Ross.  2  Congressional  Globe,  Jan.  29, 1862,  p.  551. 


THE  CURRENCY.  309 

The  chief  cause  of  this  new-born  zeal  for  paper  money  is  the 
same  as  that  which  led  a  member  of  the  Continental  Congress 
to  exclaim :  "  Do  you  think,  gentlemen,  that  I  will  consent  to 
load  my  constituents  with  taxes,  when  we  can  send  to  our  printer 
and  get  a  wagon-load  of  money,  one  quire  of  which  will  pay  for 
the  whole  ?  " 

The  simple  fact  in  the  case  is  that  Congress  went  resolutely 
and  almost  unanimously  forward  in  the  policy  of  gradual  re- 
sumption of  specie  payments,  and  a  return  to  the  old  standard 
of  values,  until  the  pressure  of  falling  prices  and  hard  times 
began  to  be  felt;  and  now  many  are  shrinking  from  the  good 
work  they  have  undertaken,  are  turning  back  from  the  path 
they  so  worthily  resolved  to  pursue,  and  are  asking  Congress  to 
plunge  the  nation  deeper  than  ever  into  the  abyss  from  which 
it  has  been  struggling  so  earnestly  to  escape.  Did  any  reflect- 
ing man  suppose  it  possible  for  the  country  to  return  from  the 
high  prices,  the  enormous  expansion  of  business,  debt,  and 
speculation  occasioned  by  the  war,  without  much  depression 
and  temporary  distress?  The  wit  of  man  has  never  devised  a 
method  by  which  the  vast  commercial  and  industrial  interests  of 
a  nation  can  suffer  the  change  from  peace  to  war,  and  from  war 
back  to  peace,  without  hardship  and  loss.  The  homely  old 
maxim,  "  What  goes  up  must  come  down,"  applies  to  our  situa- 
tion with  peculiar  force.  The  **  coming  down "  is  inevitable. 
Congress  can  only  break  the  fall  and  mitigate  its  evils  by  ad- 
justing the  taxation,  the  expenditures,  and  the  currency  of  the 
country  to  the  changed  conditions  of  affairs.  This  it  is  our 
duty  to  do  with  a  firm  and  steady  hand. 

Much  of  this  work  has  already  been  done.  Our  national 
expenditures  have  been  very  considerably  reduced,  but  the 
work  of  retrenching  expenditures  can  go,  and  should  go,  much 
further.  Very  many,  perhaps  too  many,  of  our  national  taxes 
have  been  removed.  But  if  this  Congress  shall  consent  to 
break  down  the  dikes,  and  let  in  on  the  country  a  new  flood 
of  paper  money  for  the  temporary  relief  of  business,  we  shall 
see  all  the  evils  of  our  present  situation  return  after  a  few 
months  with  redoubled  force.  It  is  my  clear  conviction  that 
the  most  formidable  danger  with  which  the  country  is  now 
threatened  is  a  large  increase  in  the  volume  of  paper  money. 

Shall  we  learn  nothing  from  experience?  Shall  the  warnings 
of  the  past  be  unheeded?   What  other  nation  has  so  painfully 


310  THE  CURRENCY. 

spelled  out,  letter  by  letter  and  word  byword,  the  terrible  mean- 
ing of  irredeemable  paper  money,  whether  known  by  the  name 
of  Colonial  bills,  Continental  currency,  or  notes  of  dishonored 
banks?  Most  of  the  Colonies  had  suffered  untold  evils  from 
depreciated  paper  before  the  Revolution.  Massachusetts  issued 
her  first  bills  of  credit  in  1690  to  meet  a  war  debt,  and  after  sixty 
years  of  vain  and  delusive  efforts  to  make  worthless  paper  serve 
the  purposes  of  money,  found  her  industry  perishing  under  the 
weight  of  Colony  bills  equal  in  nominal  value  to  $11,000,000, 
which,  though  made  a  legal  tender  and  braced  up  by  the  sever- 
est laws,  were  worth  but  twelve  per  cent  of  their  face.  So  in 
1750,  under  the  lead  of  Hutchinson,  a  far-sighted  and  coura- 
geous statesman,  she  resumed  specie  payment,  cancelled  all 
her  bills,  prohibited  by  law  the  circulation  of  paper  money 
within  her  borders,  and  made  it  a  crime  punishable  by  a  fine  of 
£iQO  for  any  Governor  to  approve  any  bill  to  make  it  a  legal 
tender.  For  the  next  quarter  of  a  century  Massachusetts  en- 
joyed the  blessings  of  a  sound  currency.  Rhode  Island  clung 
to  the  delusion  many  years  longer.  More  than  one  hundred 
pages  of  Arnold's  History  of  that  Colony  are  devoted  to  por- 
traying the  distress  and  confusion  resulting  from  this  cause 
alone.  The  history  of  every  Colony  that  issued  bills  is  a  repe- 
tition of  the  same  sad  story. 

The  financial  history  of  the  Revolution  is  too  familiar  to  need 
repetition  here,  but  there  are  points  in  that  history  of  which  an 
American  Congress  cannot  be  too  often  reminded.  Nowhere 
else  were  all  the  qualities  of  irredeemable  paper  money  so  fully 
exhibited.  From  the  first  emission  of  $2,000,000,  in  1775,  till 
the  last,  in  1781,  when  $360,000,000  had  been  issued,  there  ap- 
peared to  be  a  purpose,  perpetually  renewed  but  always  broken, 
to  restrict  the  amount  and  issue  no  more.  Each  issue  was  to  be 
the  last.  But  notwithstanding  the  enormous  volume  reluctantly 
put  in  circulation,  our  fathers  seemed  to  believe  that  its  value 
could  be  kept  up  by  legislation.  They  denounced  in  resolutions 
of  Congress  the  first  depreciation  of  these  bills  as  the  work  of 
enemies;  and  in  January,  1776,  resolved,  **That  if  any  person 
shall  hereafter  be  so  lost  to  all  virtue  and  regard  for  his  coun- 
try as  to  refuse  to  receive  said  bills  in  payment,  etc.,  he  shall 
be  treated  as  an  enemy  of  his  country,  and  precluded  from  all 
trade  or  intercourse  with  the  inhabitants  of  these  Colonics." 

But  they  found  before  the  struggle  ended  that  the  inexorable 


THE  CURRENCY.  311 

laws  of  value  were  above  human  legislation;  that  resolutions 
cannot  nullify  the  truths  of  the  multiplication  table.  The  bills 
passed  nearly  at  par  until  the  issues  exceeded  $9,000,000.  At 
the  end  of  1776  they  were  worth  seventy-five  per  cent  of  their 
nominal  value;  at  the  end  of  1777,  twenty-five;  at  the  end  of 
1778,  sixteen;  at  the  end  of  1779,  two  and  a  half;  and  at  the 
end  of  1780  they  were  worth  but  one  cent  on  the  dollar.  Four 
months  later  $500  in  Continental  bills  was  selling  for  one  dollar 
in  specie.     Pelatiah  Webster,  in  1 791, said:  — 

"  The  fatal  error  that  the  credit  and  currency  of  Continental  money 
could  be  kept  up  and  supported  by  acts  of  compulsion  entered  so  deep 
into  the  mind  of  Congress  and  of  all  departments  of  administration 
through  the  States,  that  no  considerations  of  justice,  religion,  or  policy, 
or  even  experience  of  its  utter  inefficacy,  could  eradicate  it :  it  seemed  to 
be  a  kind  of  obstinate  delirium,  totally  deaf  to  every  argument  drawn 
fh)m  justice  and   right,  from  its  natural  tendency  and  mischief,  from 

common  sense  and  even  common  safety This  ruinous  principle 

was  continued  in  practice  for  five  successive  years,  and  appeared  in  all 
shapes  and  forms,  i.  e.  legal-tender  acts,  limitations  of  prices,  in  awful 
and  threatening  declarations,  in  penal  laws  with  dreadful  and  heinous 

punishments Many  thousand  families  of  full  and  easy  fortune  were 

ruined  by  these  fatal  measures,  and  lie  in  ruins  to  this  day,  without  the 
least  benefit  to  the  country,  or  to  the  great  and  noble  cause  in  which 
we  were  then  engaged."  * 

In  summing  up  the  evils  of  the  Continental  currency,  after 
speaking  of  the  terrible  hardships  of  the  war,  the  destruction  of 
property  by  the  enemy,  who  at  times  during  its  progress  held 
eleven  out  of  the  thirteen  State  capitals,  Mr.  Webster,  who  had 
seen  it  all,  said :  — 

"Yet  these  evils  were  not  as  great  as  those  which  were  caused  by 
Continental  money  and  the  consequent  irregularities  of  the  financial 
system.  We  have  suffered  from  this  cause  more  than  from  every  other 
cause  of  calamity ;  it  has  killed  more  men ;  pervaded  and  corrupted  the 
choicest  interests  of  our  country  more,  and  done  more  injustice  than 
even  the  arms  and  artifices  of  our  enemies." 

But  let  it  never  be  forgotten  that  the  fathers  of  the  Revolution 
saw,  at  last,  the  fatal  error  into  which  they  had  fallen;  and 
even  in  the  midst  of  their  great  trials  restored  to  the  young 
nation,  then  struggling  for  its  existence,  its  standard  of  value, 
its  basis  for  honest  and   honorable  industry.     In  178 1  Robert 

1  Political  Essays,  etc.,  (Philadelphia,  1791,)  pp.  128, 129,  note. 


312  THE  CURRENCY. 

Morris  was  appointed  Superintendent  of  Finance.  He  made  a 
return  to  specie  payments  the  condition  of  his  acceptance ;  and 
on  the  22d  of  May  Congress  declared  •*  that  the  calculations  of 
the  expenses  of  the  present  campaign  shall  be  made  in  solid 
coin " ;  and  "  that,  experience  having  evinced  the  inefficiency 
of  all  attempts  to  support  the  credit  of  paper  money  by  com- 
pulsory acts,  it  is  recommended  to  such  States,  where  laws  mak- 
ing paper  bills  a  tender  yet  exist,  to  repeal  the  same."  Thus 
were  the  financial  interests  of  the  nation  rescued  from  dishonor 
and  utter  ruin. 

The  state  of  the  currency  from  the  close  of  the  war  to  the 
establishment  of  the  government  under  the  Constitution  was 
most  deplorable.  The  separate  States  had  been  seized  with  the 
mania  for  paper  money,  and  were  rivalling  each  other  in  the 
extravagance  of  their  issues  and  the  rigor  of  their  financial 
laws.  One  by  one  they  were  able  at  last  to  conquer  the  evils 
into  which  paper  money  had  plunged  them.  In  1786  James 
Madison  wrote  from  Richmond  to  General  Washington  the 
joyful  news  that  the  Virginia  Legislature  had,  by  a  majority  of 
eighty-four  to  seventeen,  voted  "paper  money  unjust,  impolitic, 
destructive  of  public  and  private  confidence,  and  of  that  virtue 
which  is  the  basis  of  republican  government." 

The  paper  money  of  Massachusetts  was  the  chief  cause  of 
Shays's  rebellion.  The  paper  money  of  Rhode  Island  kept 
that  State  for  several  years  from  coming  into  the  Union. 

Nearly  half  a  century  afterwards,  Daniel  Webster,  reviewing 
the  financial  history  of  the  period  now  under  consideration, 
said :  "  From  the  close  of  the  war  to  the  time  of  the  adoption 
of  this  Constitution,  as  I  verily  believe,  the  people  suffered  as 
much,  except  in  loss  of  life,  from  the  disordered  state  of  the 
currency  and  the  prostration  of  commerce  and  business,  as 
they  suffered  during  the  war." 

With  such  an  experience,  it  is  not  wonderful  that  the  framers 
of  our  Constitution  should  have  undertaken  to  protect  their 
descendants  from  the  evils  that  they  had  themselves  endured. 

By  reference  to  the  Madison  Papers,^  it  will  be  seen  that  in 
the  first  draft  of  the  Constitution  there  was  a  clause  giving 
Congress  the  power  "  to  borrow  money,  and  emit  bills,  on  the 
credit  of  the  United  States."  On  the  i6th  of  August,  1787,  on 
the  final  revision,  Gouverneur  Morris  moved  to  strike  out  the 

>  Elliot's  Debates,  Vol.  V.  pp.  130,  378. 


THE  CURRENCY,  313 

clause  authorizing  the  emission  of  bills.  Mr.  Madison  thought 
it  would  be  sufficient  to  forbid  their  being  made  a  tender.  Mr. 
Ellsworth  "thought  this  a  favorable  moment  to  shut  and  bar 
the  door  against  paper  money.  The  mischiefs  of  the  various 
experiments  which  had  been  made  were  now^  fresh  in  the  public 
mind,  and  had  excited  the  disgust  of  all  the  respectable  part  of 
America."  Mr.  Read  **  thought  the  words,  if  not  struck  out, 
would  be  as  alarming  as  the  mark  of  the  beast  in  Revelation." 
Mr.  Langdon  "  had  rather  reject  the  whole  plan  than  retain  the 
three  words  *  and  emit  bills.* "  The  clause  was  stricken  out  by  a 
vote  of  nine  States  to  two.^  August  28,  Roger  Sherman,  remark- 
ing that  **  this  is  a  favorable  crisis  for  crushing  paper  money," 
moved  to  prohibit  the  States  from  emitting  bills  of  credit,  or 
making  anything  but  gold  and  silver  coin  a  tender  in  payment 
of  debts.  This  clause  was  placed  in  the  Constitution  by  a  vote 
of  eight  States  to  two.*  Thus  our  fathers  supposed  they  had 
protected  us  against  the  very  evil  which  now  afflicts  the  nation. 

The  doctrines  which  I  am  advocating  in  reference  to  the  evils 
of  an  inconvertible  currency  are  strongly  corroborated  by  the 
financial  experience  of  Great  Britain.  One  of  the  ablest  of 
English  writers  on  finance  thus  sums  up  the  history  of  panics 
and  commercial  distress :  — 

"  From  the  undue  or  unnecessary  increase  of  the  currency,  which 
could  not  take  place  if  vhe  whole  were  metallic,  we  have  the  origin  and 
sole  cause  of  general  speculation  and  overtrading,  which  proceed  with 
its  increase,  and  in  their  progress  demand  or  require  new  additions  to 
the  circulation  and  credit ;  and,  from  the  consequent  facility  of  obtaining 
credit,  may  far  outstrip  the  actual  increase  of  the  currency ;  a  state  of 
things  that  cannot  be  prolonged  beyond  the  safety  of  the  Bank,*  which 
again  depends  on  the  stock  of  her  treasure ;  the  issues  are  then  con- 
tracted, this  is  followed  by  the  contraction  of  the  country  circulation, 
credit  is  destroyed,  and  suddenly  our  market  assumes  the  appearance  of 
low  prices,  overproduction,  or  indefinite  supply.  If  this  principle  is 
applied  to  the  contraction  of  our  currency  in  181 5  and  181 6,  with  the 
low  prices  that  followed  ;  its  extension  in  181 7  and  181 8,  and  the  gen- 
eral speculation,  overtrading,  and  high  prices  that  succeeded ;  and,  again, 
to  its  contraction  in  181 9,  1820,  1821,  and  1822,  and  the  general  com- 
plaint of  abundance  of  foreign  and  home  produce  and  low  prices 
that  continued  throughout  these  years  ;  and  lastly  to  the  increase  of  the 
currency  in   1824  and  part  of  1825,  with  the  accompanying  rage   of 

1  EUiot*s  Debates,  Vol.  V.  p.  435.  2  Ibid.,  Vol.  V.  p.  485. 

*  The  Bank  of  England. 


314  THE  CURRENCY. 

speculation,  overtrading,  and  high  prices  that  followed,  we  see  the  estab- 
lishment of  the  principle  in  all  its  forms  and  effects."  * 

To  review  briefly  the  ground  travelled  over :  we  have  seen 
that  the  hard  times  and  depression  of  business  which  the  coun- 
try is  now  suffering  were  caused  in  the  first  instance  by  the 
great  industrial  revolution  which  grew  out  of  the  war,  and  that 
its  evils  have  been  aggravated  and  are  in  danger  of  being  indefi- 
nitely continued  by  the  unsettled  condition  of  our  currency,  and 
by  the  uncertainty  of  Congressional  legislation;  that  we  have 
not  now,  and,  without  decisive  legislation,  cannot  have,  a  fixed 
standard  of  value,  and  therefore  all  trade  and  business  are  at 
the  mercy  of  political  sensations  and  business  intHgues,  the  evils 
of  which  fall  heaviest  upon  the  laboring  man ;  that  the  greatest 
financial  danger  which  threatens  us  is  that  some  of  the  schemes 
now  before  Congress  may  result  in  a  large  increase  of  irredeem- 
able paper  money,  for  which  there  can  be  no  defence  except 
such  an  overwhelming  necessity  as  compelled  Congress  to  use 
it,  in  the  moment  of  supreme  peril,  to  save  the  life  of  the  nation ; 
that  history  is  full  of  warnings  against  such  a  policy ;  that  dur- 
ing our  Colonial  period,  during  the  war  of  the  Revolution,  and 
after  the  war,  our  fathers  tested  and  practically  exploded  the 
very  theories  now  in  vogue  respecting  paper  money,  and  at- 
tempted so  to  frame  the  Constitution  as  to  shield  us  from  the 
calamities  that  they  suffered ;  and  finally,  that  these  views  are 
fully  confirmed  by  the  financial  history  of  England.  From 
these  considerations  it  appears  to  me  that  the  first  step  toward 
a  settlement  of  our  financial  and  industrial  affairs  should  be  to 
adopt  and  declare  to  the  country  a  fixed  and  definite  policy,  so 
that  industry  and  enterprise  may  be  based  upon  confidence ;  so 
that  men  may  know  what  to  expect  from  the  government ;  and, 
above  all,  that  the  course  of  business  may  be  so  adjusted  that 
it  shall  be  governed  by  the  laws  of  trade,  and  not  by  the  caprice 
of  any  man  or  of  any  political  party  in  or  out  of  Congress. 

What  has  the  Fortieth  Congress  done  in  reference  to  this  sub- 
ject? Thus  far,  nothing  has  been  done,  except  to  abandon  the 
policy  which  we  have  been  pursuing  for  the  past  two  years.  By 
joint  resolution  of  January  23,  1868,  it  was  ordered  that  there 
shall  be  no  further  contraction  of  the  currency;  but  the  Commit- 
tee of  Ways  and  Means  not  only  did  not  indicate  what  policy 

1  Mushet :  An  Attempt  to  explain  the  Effect  of  the  Issues  of  the  Bank  of 
England,  (London,  1826,)  pp.  182,  183. 


THE  CURRENCY.  315 

they  should  recommend,  but  they  gave  no  reasons  for  the  meas- 
ure they  reported,  nor  did  they  allow  any  debate  or  question  by 
others.  I  voted  against  that  resolution,  not  because  I  was  in 
favor  of  continuing  without  change  the  policy  we  were  then 
pursuing,  but  because  I  believed,  as  has  since  been  manifest, 
that  a  large  party  in  this  House  intended  not  to  stop  there,  but 
to  make  that  resolution  the  first  step  toward  inflation.  Against 
that  policy  I  made  the  only  protest  left  to  me,  by  voting  against 
the  first  measure  in  the  programme. 

That  contraction  of  the  currency  tended  toward  specie  pay- 
ments, few  will  deny;  but  that  there  were  serious  evils  con- 
nected with  it  is  also  manifest.  The  element  of  uncertainty  was 
the  chief  evil.  It  was  never  known  whether  the  Secretary  of 
the  Treasury  would  use  the  power  placed  in  his  hands  during 
any  given  month,  or  not ;  and  the  stringency  caused  by  con- 
traction was  always  anticipated  and  generally  exaggerated.  The 
actual  contraction  had  far  less  influence  on  business  than  the 
expectation  of  it  In  connection  with  this  policy,  the  efforts  of 
the  Secretary  to  keep  the  gold  market  steady  by  sales  from  the 
Treasury  increased  the  uncertainty,  and  led  to  a*  very  general 
feeling  that  it  was  unwise  to  put  the  control  of  business  and 
prices,  to  so  great  an  extent,  in  the  hands  of  any  one  man ;  es- 
pecially of  one  so  involved  in  the  political  antagonisms  of  the 
hour  as  the  present  Secretary. 

The  financial  schemes  and  plans  now  before  Congress  are  so 
numerous  and  so  contradictory  as  to  give  us  little  hope  that  any 
comprehensive  policy  can  be  agreed  upon  at  present.  For  my- 
self, I  have  but  little  faith  in  panaceas, —  in  remedies  which  will 
cure  all  evils,  —  in  any  one  plan  which  will  reach  all  the  difficul- 
ties of  our  situation.  Above  all,  it  seems  to  me  unwise  to  com- 
plicate the  questions  that  arc  pressing  for  immediate  solution 
with  those  which  refer  to  subjects  not  yet  ripe  for  action.  For 
example,  I  have  not  yet  seen  the  wisdom  of  making  the  redemp- 
tion of  the  five-twenty  bonds  —  not  one  of  which  is  payable  for 
fourteen  years  to  come  —  a  prominent  element  in  our  legislation 
at  this  time.  In  the  midst  of  so  many  difficulties,  it  is  better  to 
do  one  thing  at  a  time,  and  to  do  it  carefully  and  thoroughly. 

On  the  lOth  of  February  I  introduced  a  bill  which,  if  it 
should  become  a  law,  will,  I  believe,  go  far  toward  restoring 
confidence  and  giving  stability  to  business;  and  will  lay  the 
foundation  on  which  a  general  financial  policy  may  be  based, 


3i6  THE  CURRENCY. 

whenever  opinions  are  so  harmonized  as  to  make  a  general 
policy  possible.  As  the  bill  is  short,  I  will  quote  it  entire,  and 
call  attention  for  a  few  moments  to  its  provisions :  — 

"  A  Bill  to  provide  for  a  gradual  return  to  Specie  Payments. 

"  Be  it  enacted  by  the  Senate  and  House  of  Representatives  of  the 
United  States  of  America  in  Congress  assembled.  That  on  and  after 
the  ist  day  of  December,  1868,  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  be, 
and  he  is  hereby,  authorized  and  directed  to  pay  gold  coin  of  the 
United  States  for  any  legal-tender  notes  of  the  United  States  which 
may  be  presented  at  the  office  of  the  Assistant  Treasurer,  at  New  York, 
at  the  rate  of  one  dollar  in  gold  for  one  dollar  and  thirty  cents  in  legal- 
tender  notes.  On  and  after  the  ist  day  of  January,  1869,  the  rate  shall 
be  one  dollar  in  gold  for  one  dollar  and  twenty-nine  cents  in  legal-tender 
notes ;  and  at  the  beginning  of  and  during  each  succeeding  month  the 
amount  of  legal-tender  notes  required  in  exchange  for  one  dollar  in 
gold  shall  be  one  cent  less  than  the  amount  required  during  the  pre- 
ceding month,  until  the  exchange  becomes  one  dollar  in  gold  for  one 
dollar  in  legal-tender  notes ;  and  on  and  after  the  ist  day  of  June,  187 1, 
the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  shall  exchange  gold  for  legal-tender  notes, 
dollar  for  dollar:  Provided,  that  nothing  in  this  act  shall  be  so  con- 
strued as  to  authorize  the  retirement  or  cancellation  of  any  legal-tender 
notes  of  the  United  States." 

To  all  plans  hitherto  proposed  it  has  been  objected  that  the 
vast  amount  of  public  debt  yet  to  be  funded,  and  the  still  larger 
amount  of  private  indebtedness,  the  value  of  which  would  be 
changed  in  favor  of  the  creditor  and  against  the  debtor,  made 
it  impossible  to  return  to  specie  payments  without  great  loss 
both  to  the  government  and  to  the  debtor  class.  I  have  no 
doubt  that  an  immediate  or  sudden  resumption  of  payments 
would  prove  a  heavy  shock  to  business,  and  very  greatly  disturb 
the  present  scale  of  values.  These  objections  are  almost  wholly 
avoided  in  the  bill  I  have  proposed,  by  making  the  return 
gradual ;  and  the  time  when  the  process  is  to  begin  is  placed  so 
far  ahead  as  to  give  full  notice  and  allow  the  country  to  adjust 
its  business  to  the  provisions  of  the  act.  By  the  ist  of  Decem- 
ber next,  the  floating  and  temporary  debt  of  the  United  States 
will  be  funded,  in  accordance  with  laws  already  in  operation ; 
the  excitement  and  derangement  of  business  incident  to  a  Presi- 
dential election  will  be  over,  and  we  ought  to  be  ready  at  that 
time,  if  ever,  to  take  decisive  steps  toward  the  old  paths.  I  do 
not  doubt  that,  in  anticipation  of  the  operation  of  this  measure, 


THE  CURRENCY,  llj 

should  it  become  a  law,  gold  would  be  at  130,  or  lower,  by  the 
1st  of  December,  and  that  very  little  would  be  asked  for,  from 
the  Treasury,  in  exchange  for  currency.  At  the  beginning  of 
each  succeeding  month,  the  exchange  between  gold  and  green- 
backs would  be  reduced  one  cent,  and  specie  payments  would  be 
fully  resumed  in  June,  1871.  That  the  country  is  able  to  resume 
by  that  time  will  hardly  be  denied.  With  the  $100,000,000  of 
gold  now  in  the  Treasury,  and  the  amount  received  from  cus- 
toms, which  averages  nearly  half  a  million  per  day,  it  is  not  at 
all  probable  that  we  should  need  to  borrow  a  dollar  in  order  to 
carry  out  the  provisions  of  the  law. 

But  taking  the  most  unfavorable  aspect  of  the  case,  and  sup- 
posing that  the  government  should  find  it  necessary  to  authorize 
a  gold  loan,  the  expense  would  be  trifling  compared  with  the 
resulting  benefits  to  the  country.  The  proposed  measure  would 
incidentally  bring  all  the  national  banks  to  the  aid  of  the  govern- 
ment in  the  work  of  resumption.  The  banks  are  required  by 
law  to  redeem  their  own  notes  in  greenbacks.  They  now  hold  in 
their  vaults,  as  a  reserve  required  by  law,  $162,000,000,  of  which 
sum  $1 14,000,000  is  in  greenbacks.  Being  compelled  to  pay  the 
same  price  for  their  own  notes  as  for  greenbacks,  they  would 
gradually  accumulate  a  specie  reserve,  and  would  be  compelled 
to  keep  abreast  of  the  government  in  every  step  of  the  progress 
toward  resumption.  The  necessity  of  redeeming  their  own 
notes  would  keep  their  circulation  nearer  home,  and  would  more 
equally  distribute  the  currency  of  the  country,  which  now  con- 
centrates at  the  great  money  centres,  and  produces  scarcity  in 
the  rural  districts.  This  measure  would  not  at  once  restore  the 
old  national  standard  of  value,  but  it  would  give  stability  to 
business  and  confidence  to  business  men  everywhere.  Every 
man  who  contracts  a  debt  would  know  what  the  value  of  a 
dollar  would  be  when  the  debt  became  due.  The  opportunity 
now  aflforded  to  Wall  Street  gamblers  to  run  up  and  run  down 
the  relative  price  of  gold  and  greenbacks  would  be  removed. 
The  element  of  chance,  which  now  vitiates  our  whole  industrial 
system,  would  in  great  part  be  eliminated. 

If  this  measure  be  adopted,  it  will  incidentally  settle  several 
of  our  most  troublesome  questions.  It  will  end  the  war  between 
the  contractionists  and  the  inflationists,  — a  war  which,  like  that 
of  Marius  and  Sylla,  may  prove  almost  fatal  to  the  interests  of  the 
country,  whichever  side  prevails.     The  amount  of  paper  money 


3i8  THE  CURRENCY, 

will  regulate  itself,  and  may  be  unlimited,  so  long  as  every 
dollar  is  convertible  into  specie  at  the  will  of  the  holder. 

The  still  more  difficult  question  of  paying  our  five-twenty 
bonds  would  be  avoided,  —  completely  flanked  by  this  measure. 
The  money  paid  to  the  wounded  soldier,  and  to  the  soldier's 
widow,  would  soon  be  made  equal  in  value  to  the  money  paid 
to  all  other  creditors  of  the  government. 

It  will  be  observed  that  the  bill  does  not  authorize  the  cancel- 
lation or  retirement  of  any  United  States  notes.  It  is  believed 
that,  for  )a  time  at  least,  the  volume  of  the  currency  may  safely 
remain  as  it  now  is.  When  the  measure  has  been  in  force  for 
some  time  it  will  be  seen  whether  the  increased  use  of  specie  for 
purposes  of  circulation  will  not  allow  a  gradual  reduction  of  the 
legal-tender  notes.  This  can  be  safely  left  to  subsequent  legis- 
lation. It  will  facilitate  the  success  of  this  plan,  if  Congress  will 
pass  a  bill  to  legalize  contracts  hereafter  made  for  the  payment 
of  coin.  If  this  be  done,  many  business  men  will  conduct  their 
affairs  on  a  specie  basis,  and  thus  retain  at  home  much  of  our 
gold  that  now  goes  abroad. 

I  have  not  been  ambitious  to  add  another  to  the  many 
financial  plans  proposed  to  this  Congress,  much  less  have  I 
sought  to  introduce  a  new  and  untried  scheme.  On  the  con- 
trary, I  regard  it  a  strong  recommendation  of  this  measure  that 
it  is  substantially  the  same  as  that  by  which  Great  Britain  re- 
sumed specie  payments,  after  a  suspension  of  nearly  a  quarter 
of  a  century. 

The  situation  of  England  at  that  time  was  strikingly  similar  to 
our  present  situation.  She  had  just  emerged  from  a  great  war, 
in  which  her  resources  had  been  taxed  to  the  utmost.  Business 
had  been  expanded,  and  high  prices  prevailed.  Paper  money 
had  been  issued  in  unusual  volume,  was  virtually  a  legal  tender, 
and  had  depreciated  to  the  extent  of  twenty-five  per  cent. 
Every  financial  evil  from  which  we  now  suffer  prevailed  there, 
and  was  aggravated  by  having  been  longer  in  operation.  Plans 
and  theories  without  end  were  proposed  to  meet  the  many 
difficulties  of  the  case.  For  ten  years  the  Bank  of  England  and 
the  majority  in  Parliament  vehemently  denied  that  paper  money 
had  depreciated,  notwithstanding  the  unanswerable  report  of 
the  Bullion  Committee  of  1810,  and  the  undeniable  fact  that  it 
tocbk  twenty-five  per  cent  more  of  notes  than  of  coin  to  buy  an 
oumce  of  gold.     Many  insisted  that  paper  was  a  better  standard 


THE  CURRENCY.  319 

of  value  than  coin.  Some  denounced  the  attempt  to  return  to 
specie  as  unwise ;  others  as  impossible.  William  Cobbett,  the 
famous  pamphleteer,  announced  that  he  would  give  himself  up 
to  be  broiled  on  a  gridiron  whenever  the  Bank  should  resume 
cash  payments;  and  for  many  years  kept  the  picture  of  a  grid- 
iron at  the  head  of  his  Political  Register,  to  remind  his  readers 
of  his  prophecy.  Every  phase  of  the  question  was  discussed 
by  the  best  minds  of  the  kingdom,  in  and  out  of  Parliament,  for 
more  than  ten  years;  and  in  May,  18 19,  under  the  lead  of  Sir 
Robert  Peel,  a  law  was  passed  fixing  the  time  and  mode  of 
resumption. 

It  provided  that  on  the  ist  of  February,  1820,  the  Bank  should 
give,  in  exchange  for  its  notes,  gold  bullion,  in  quantities  not 
less  than  sixty  ounces,  at  the  rate  of  8ij.  per  ounce;  that  from 
the  1st  of  October,  1820,  the  rate  should  be  79J.  6d,;  from  the 
1st  of  May,  1822,  79^.  \o\d,;  and  on  the  1st  of  May,  1823,  the 
Bank  should  redeem  all  its  notes  in  coin,  whatever  the  amount 
presented.  The  passage  of  the  act  gave  once  more  a  fixed  and 
certain  value  to  money;  and  business  so  soon  adjusted  itself  to 
the  measure  in  anticipation  that  specie  payments  were  fully 
resumed  on  the  ist  of  May,  1821,  two  years  before  the  time 
fixed  by  the  law.  Forty-seven  years  have  elapse^  since  then, 
and  the  verdict  of  history  has  approved  the  wisdofii  of  the  act, 
notwithstanding  the  clamor  and  outcry  which  at  first  assailed  it. 
So  plainly  does  this  lesson  apply  to  us  that,  in  the  preface  to 
one  of  the  best  histories  of  England  recently  published,  the 
author,  who  is  an  earnest  friend  of  the  United  States,  says:  — 

"  It  seems  to  me  that  no  thoughtful  citizen  of  any  nation  can  read  the 
story  of  the  years  before  and  after  Peel's  bill  of  18 19,  extending  over  the 
crash  of  1825-26,  without  the  strongest  desire  that  such  risks  and  ca- 
lamities may  b^  avoided  in  his  own  country,  at  any  sacrifice.  There  are 
several  countri  5  under  the  doom  of  retribution  for  the  license  of  an 
inconvertible  paper  currency  ;  and  of  these  the  United  States  are  unhap- 
pily one.  This  passage  of  F^nglish  history  may  possibly  help  to  check 
the  levity  with  which  the  inevitable  *  crash  '  is  spoken  of  by  some  who  little 
dream  what  the  horrors  and  griefs  of  such  a  convulsion  are.  It  may  do 
more,  if  it  should  convince  any  considerable  number  of  observers  that  the 
affairs  of  the  economic  world  are  as  truly  and  certainly  under  the  control 
of  natural  laws  as  the  world  of  matter  without,  and  that  of  mind  within."  ^ 

This  testimony  of  a  friend  is  worthy  our  profoundest  consid- 
eration. 

1  Harriet  Martineau :  History  of  the  Peace,  (Boston,  1S64,)  Vol.  I.  p.  8. 


330  THE  CURRENCY. 

I  will  malce  no  apology  for  the  length  to  which  I  have  ex- 
tended these  remarks.     The  importance  of  the  subject  demanded 
it.     The  decision  we  shall  reach  on  this  question  will  settle  or 
unsettle  the  foundations  of  public  credit,  of  the  public  faith,  and 
of  individual  and  national  prosperity.     The  time  and  manner  of 
paying  the  bonds,  the  refunding  the  national  debt,  the  contin- 
uance or  abolition  of  the  national  banks,  and  many  other  prop- 
ositions, depend  for  their  wisdom  or  unwisdom  on  the  settlement 
of  this  question.     I  know  we  are  told  that  resumption  of  specie 
payments  will  increase  the  value  of  the  public  debt,  and  thus 
add  to  the  burden  of  taxation ;  and  we  are  told,  with  special 
emphasis,  that  the  people  will  not  tolerate  any  increase  of  their 
burdens,  but  that  they  demand  plenty  of  money  and  a  return  of 
high  prices.     But,  sir,  I  have  learned  to  think  better  of  the 
American  people  than  to  believe  that  they  are  not  willing  to 
know  the  worst  and  to  provide  for  it.     I  remember  that,  after 
the  first  defeat  at  Bull  Run,  many  officers  of  the  government 
thought  it  not  safe  to  let  the  people  know,  at  once,  the  full  ex- 
tent of  the  disaster ;  but  that  the  news  should  be  broken  gently, 
that  the  nation  might  be  better  able  to  bear  it.     Long  before 
the  close  of  the  war,  it  was  found   that  Cabinet  and  Congress 
and  all  the  officers  of  the  United  States  needed  for  themselves 
to  draw  hope  and  courage  from  the  great  heart  of  the  people. 
It  was  only  necessary  for  the  nation  to  know  the  extent  of  the 
danger,  the  depth  of  the  need,  and  its  courage,  faith,  and  en- 
durance were  always  equal  to  the  necessity.     It  is  now,  as  ever, 
our  highest  duty  to  deal  honestly  and  frankly  with  the  people 
who  sent  us  here,  in  reference  to  their  financial  and  industrial 
affairs ;  to  assure  them  that  the  path  of  safety  is  a  narrow  and 
rugged  one;  that  by  economy  and  prudence,  by  much  patience 
and  some  suffering,  they  must  come  down,  by  slow  and  careful 
steps,  from  the  uncertain  and  dangerous  height  to  which  the 
war  carried  them,  or  they  will  fall  at  last  in  financial  ruin  more 
sudden  and  calamitous  than  any  yet  recorded  in  the  history  of 
mankind.     Let  it  be  remembered,  also,  that  the  heaviest  of  the 
pressure    has   already   been    felt;    the    climax    of    suffering    is 
already  past.     The  spring   has  opened  with  better  prospects, 
and  indications  are  not  wanting  that  the  end  of  stagnation  and 
depression  is  near.     The  hitherto   unknown  extent  of  our  re- 
sources, the  great  recuperative  energies  of  our  industry,  and  the 
generous  loyalty  of  the  people,  have  brought  the  nation  safely 


THE  CURRENCY.  321 

thus  far  through  the  dangers  and  difficulties  of  the  rebellion. 
Patience  and  steady  firmness  maintained  here  and  among  the 
people  a  little  longer  will  overcome  the  obstacles  that  yet  lie 
before  us.  / 

For  my  own  part,  my  course  is  taken.  In  view  of  all  the 
facts  of  our  situation ;  of  all  the  terrible  experiences  of  the  past, 
both  at  home  and  abroad ;  and  of  the  united  testimony  of  the 
wisest  and  bravest  statesmen  who  have  lived  and  labored  during 
the  last  century,  it  is  my  firm  conviction  that  any  considerable 
increase  of  the  volume  of  our  inconvertible  paper  money  will 
shatter  public  credit,  will  paralyze  industry  and  oppress  the 
poor ;  and  that  the  gradual  restoration  of  our  ancient  standard 
of  value  will  lead  us,  by  the  safest  and  surest  path,  to  national 
prosperity  and  the  steady  pursuits  of  peace. 


VOL.  I.  21 


STREWING    FLOWERS    ON    THE    GRAVES 

OF    UNION    SOLDIERS. 

ORATION   DELIVERED  AT  ARLINGTON,   VIRGINIA, 

May  30,  1868. 


**  He  has  not  died  young  who  has  lived  long  enough  to  die  for  his  country.**  —  SchilUr, 

MR.  PRESIDENT,  —  I  am  oppressed  with  a  sense  of  the 
impropriety  of  uttering  words  on  this  occasion.  If 
silence  is  ever  golden,  it  must  be  here  beside  the  graves  of 
fifteen  thousand  men,  whose  lives  were  more  significant  than 
speech,  and  whose  death  was  a  poem,  the  music  of  which  can 
never  be  sung.  With  words  we  make  promises,  plight  faith, 
praise  virtue.  Promises  may  not  be  kept;  plighted  faith  may 
be  broken;  and  vaunted  virtue  be  only  the  cunning  mask  of 
vice.  We  do  not  know  one  promise  these  men  made,  one 
pledge  they  gave,  one  word  they  spoke ;  but  we  do  know  they 
summed  up  and  perfected,  by  one  supreme  act,  the  highest  vir- 
tues of  men  and  citizens.  For  love  of  country,  they  accepted 
death,  and  thus  resolved  all  doubts,  and  made  immortal  their 
patriotism  and  their  virtue.  For  the  noblest  man  that  lives, 
there  still  remains  a  conflict.  He  must  still  withstand  the  as- 
saults of  time  and  fortune, —  must  still  be  assailed  with  temp- 
tations, before  which  lofty  natures  have  fallen ;  but  with  these, 
the  conflict  ended,  the  victory  was  won,  when  death  stamped 
on  them  the  great  seal  of  heroic  character,  and  closed  a  record 
which  years  can  never  blot. 

I  know  of  nothing  more  appropriate  on  this  occasion  than  to 
inquire  what  brought  these  men  here.  What  high  motive  led 
them  to  condense  life  into  an  hour,  and  to  crown  that  hour  by 
joyfully  welcoming  death?     Let  us  consider. 

Eight  years  ago  this  was  the  most  unwarlike  nation  of  the 
earth.     For  nearly  fifty  years  no  spot  in  any  of  these  States 


FLOWERS  ON  SOLDIERS'  GRAVES.  323 

•  had  been  the  scene  of  battle.  Thirty  millions  of  people  had 
an  army  of  less  than  ten  thousand  men.  The  faith  of  our  peo- 
ple in  the  stability  and  permanence  of  their  institutions  was 
like  their  faith  in  the  eternal  course  of  nature.  Peace,  liberty, 
and  personal  security  were  blessings  as  common  and  universal 
as  sunshine  and  showers  and  fruitful  seasons ;  and  all  sprang 
from  a  single  source,  —  the  old  American  principle  that  all  owe 
due  submission  and  obedience  to  the  lawfully  expressed  will 
of  the  majority.  This  is  not  one  of  the  doctrines  of  our  politi- 
cal system, —  it  is  the  system  itself  It  is  our  political  firma- 
ment, in  which  all  other  truths  are  set,  as  stars  in  heaven.  It 
is  the  encasing  air,  the  breath  of  the  nation's  life.  Against 
this  principle  the  whole  weight  of  the  rebellion  was  thrown. 
Its  overthrow  would  have  brought  such  ruin  as  might  follow  in 
the  physical  universe  if  the  power  of  gravitation  were  destroyed, 
and, 

"  Nature's  concord  broke, 
Among  the  constellations  war  were  sprung, 
And  planets,  rushing  from  aspect  malign 
Of  fiercest  opposition,  in  mid-sky 
Should  combat,  and  their  jarring  spheres  confound." 

The  nation  was  summoned  to  arms  by  every  high  motive 
which  can  inspire  men.  Two  centuries  of  freedom  had  made 
its  people  unfit  for  despotism.  They  must  save  their  govern- 
ment, or  miserably  perish. 

As  a  flash  of  lightning  in  a  midnight  tempest  reveals  the 
abysmal  horrors  of  the  sea,  so  did  the  flash  of  the  first  gun  dis- 
close the  awful  abyss  into  which  rebellion  was  ready  to  plunge 
us.  In  a  moment  the  fire  was  lighted  in  twenty  million  hearts. 
In  a  moment  wc  were  the  most  warlike  nation  on  the  earth. 
In  a  moment  wc  were  not  merely  a  people  with  an  army, — 
we  were  a  people  in  arms.  The  nation  was  in  column,  —  not 
all  at  the  front,  but  all  in  the  array. 

I  love  to  believe  that  no  heroic  sacrifice  is  ever  lost;  that 
the  characters  of  men  are  moulded  and  inspired  by  what  their 
fathers  have  done;  that  treasured  up  in  American  souls  are  all 
the  unconscious  influences  of  the  great  deeds  of  the  Anglo- 
Saxon  race,  from  Agincourt  to  Bunker  Hill.  It  was  such  an 
influence  that  led  a  young  Greek,  two  thousand  years  ago,  when 
musing  on  the  battle  of  Marathon,  to  exclaim,  "  The  trophies  of 
Miltiades  will  not  let  me  sleep !  "  Could  these  men  be  silent  in 
1861,  —  these,  whose  ancestors  had  felt  the  inspiration  of  battle 


324  FLOWERS  ON  SOLDIERS'  GRAVES. 

on  every  field  where  civilization  had  fought  in  the  last  thousand 
years?  Read  their  answer  in  this  green  turf.  Each  for  him- 
self gathered  up  the  cherished  purposes  of  life,  —  its  aims  and 
ambitions,  its  dearest  affections,  —  and  flung  all,  with  life  itself, 
into  the  scale  of  battle. 

We  began  the  war  for  the  Union  alone ;  but  we  had  not  gone 
far  into  its  darkness  before  a  new  element  was  added  to  the  con- 
flict, which  filled  the  army  and  the  nation  with  cheerful  but 
intense  religious  enthusiasm.  In  lessons  that  could  not  be 
misunderstood,  the  nation  was  taught  that  God  had  linked  to 
our  own  the  destiny  of  an  enslaved  race,  —  that  their  liberty  and 
our  Union  were  indeed  "  one  and  inseparable."  It  was  this 
that  made  the  soul  of  John  Brown  the  marching  companion 
of  our  soldiers,  and  made  them  sing  as  they  went  down  to 
battle,  — 

"  Ai  the  beauty  of  the  lilies  Christ  was  born,  across  the  sea, 
With  a  glory  in  his  bosom  that  transfigures  you  and  me ; 
As  he  died  to  make  men  holy,  let  us  die  to  make  men  free, 
While  God  is  marching  on." 

With  such  inspirations,  failure  was  impossible.  The  struggle 
consecrated,  in  some  degree,  every  man  who  bore  a  worthy 
part.  I  can  never  forget  an  incident  illustrative  of  this  thought, 
which  it  was  my  fortune  to  witness,  near  sunset  of  the  second 
day  at  Chickamauga,  when  the  beleaguered  but  unbroken  left 
wing  of  our  army  had  again  and  again  repelled  the  assaults  of 
more  than  double  their  numbers,  and  when  each  soldier  felt  that 
to  his  individual  hands  were  committed  the  life  of  the  army  and 
the  honor  of  his  country.  It  was  just  after  a  division  had  fired 
its  last  cartridge,  and  had  repelled  a  charge  at  the  point  of  the 
bayonet,  that  the  great-hearted  commander  took  the  hand  of 
an  humble  soldier  and  thanked  him  for  his  steadfast  courage. 
The  soldier  stood  silent  for  a  moment,  and  then  said,  with 
deep  emotion :  "  George  H.  Thomas  has  taken  this  hand  in 
his.  I  '11  knock  down  any  mean  man  that  offers  to  take  it 
hereafter."  This  rough  sentence  was  full  of  meaning.  He  felt 
that  something  had  happened  to  his  hand  which  consecrated  it. 
Could  a  hand  bear  our  banner  in  battle,  and  not  be  forever  con- 
secrated to  honor  and  virtue?  But  doubly  consecrated  were 
these  who  received  into  their  own  hearts  the  fatal  shafts  aimed 
at  the  life  of  their  country.  Fortunate  men  !  your  country  lives 
because  you  died !     Your  fame  is  placed  where  the  breath  of 


FLOWERS  ON  SOLDIERS'   GRAVES.  325 

calumny  can  never  reach  it ;  where  the  mistakes  of  a  weary  life 
can  never  dim  its  brightness !  Coming  generations  will  rise  up 
to  call  you  blessed ! 

And  now,  consider  this  silent  assembly  of  the  dead.  What 
does  it  represent?  Nay,  rather,  what  does  it  not  represent?  It 
is  an  epitome  of  the  war.  Here  are  sheaves  reaped,  in  the  har- 
vest of  death,  from  every  battlefield  of  Virginia.  If  each  grave 
had  a  voice  to  tell  us  what  its  silent  tenant  last  saw  and  heard 
on  earth,  we  might  stand,  with  uncovered  heads,  and  hear  the 
whole  story  of  the  war.  We  should  hear  that  one  perished 
when  the  first  great  drops  of  the  crimson  shower  began  to  fall, 
when  the  darkness  of  that  first  disaster  at  Manassas  fell  like  an 
eclipse  on  the  nation ;  that  another  died  of  disease  while  wearily 
waiting  for  winter  to  end ;  that  this  one  fell  on  the  field,  in  sight 
of  the  spires  of  Richmond,  little  dreaming  that  the  flag  must  be 
carried  through  three  more  years  of  blood  before  it  should  be 
planted  in  that  citadel  of  treason ;  and  that  one  fell  when  the 
tide  of  war  had  swept  us  back  till  the  roar  of  rebel  guns  shook 
the  dome  of  yonder  Capitol,  and  re-echoed  in  the  chambers 
of  the  Executive  mansion.  We  should  hear  mingled  voices 
from  the  Rappahannock,  the  Rapidan,  the  Chickahominy,  and 
the  James,  solemn  voices  from  the  Wilderness,  and  triumphant 
shouts  from  the  Shenandoah,  from  Petersburg,  and  the  Five 
Forks,  mingled  with  the  wild  acclaim  of  victory  and  the  sweet 
chorus  of  returning  peace.  The  voices  of  these  dead  will  for- 
ever fill  the  land  like  holy  benedictions. 

What  other  spot  so  fitting  for  their  last  resting-place  as  this, 
under  the  shadow  of  the  Capitol  saved  by  their  valor?  Here, 
where  the  grim  edge  of  battle  joined,  —  here,  where  all  the  hope 
and  fear  and  agony  of  their  country  centred, — here  let  them  rest, 
asleep  on  the  nation's  heart,  entombed  in  the  nation's  love ! 

The  view  from  this  spot  bears  some  resemblance  to  that  which 
greets  the  eye  at  Rome.  In  sight  of  the  Capitoline  Hill,  up  and 
across  the  Tiber,  and  overlooking  the  city,  is  a  hill,  not  rugged 
nor  lofty,  but  known  as  the  Vatican  Mount.  At  the  beginning 
of  the  Christian  era  an  imperial  circus  stood  on  its  summit. 
There  gladiator  slaves  died  for  the  sport  of  Rome,  and  wild 
beasts  fought  with  wilder  men.  There  a  Galilean  fisherman 
gave  up  his  life  a  sacrifice  for  his  faith.  No  human  life  was 
ever  so  nobly  avenged.  On  that  spot  was  reared  the  proudest 
Christian  temple  ever  built  by  human  hands.     For  its  adorn- 


326  FLOWERS  ON  SOLDIERS*   GRAVES, 

ment  the  rich  offerings  of  every  clime  and  kingdom  have  been 
contributed.  And  now,  after  eighteen  centuries,  the  hearts  of 
two  hundred  million  people  turn  towards  it  with  reverence 
when  they  worship  God.  As  the  traveller  descends  the  Apen- 
nines, he  sees  the  dome  of  St.  Peter's  rising  above  the  desolate 
Campagna  and  the  dead  city,  long  before  the  seven  hills  and 
the  ruined  palaces  appear  to  his  view.  The  fame  of  the  dead 
fisherman  has  outlived  the  glory  of  the  Eternal  City.  A  noble 
life,  crowned  with  heroic  death,  rises  above  and  outlives  the 
pride  and  pomp  and  glory  of  the  mightiest  empire  of  the 
earth. 

Seen  from  the  western  slope  of  our  Capitol,  in  direction,  dis- 
tance, and  appearance,  this  spot  is  not  unlike  the\iatican  Mount, 
though  the  river  that  flows  at  our  feet  is  larger  than  a  hundred 
Tibers.  Seven  years  ago  this  was  the  home  of  one  who  lifted 
his  sword  against  the  life  of  his  country,  and  who  became  the 
great  Imperator  of  the  rebellion.  The  soil  beneath  our  feet  was 
watered  by  the  tears  of  slaves,  in  whose  hearts  the  sight  of  yon- 
der proud  Capitol  awakened  no  pride,  and  inspired  no  hope. 
The  face  of  the  goddess  that  crowns  it  was  turned  towards  the 
sea,  and  not  towards  them.  But,  thanks  be  to  God,  this  arena 
of  rebellion  and  slavery  is  a  scene  of  violence  and  crime  no 
longer !  This  will  be  forever  the  sacred  mountain  of  our  capital. 
Here  is  our  temple:  its  pavement  is  the  sepulchre  of  heroic 
hearts;  its  dome,  the  bending  heaven;  its  altar  candles,  the 
watching  stars. 

Hither  our  children's  children  shall  come  to  pay  their  tribute 
of  grateful  homage.  For  this  are  we  met  to-day.  By  the  happy 
suggestion  of  a  great  society,  assemblies  like  this  are  gathering 
at  this  hour  in  every  State  in  the  Union.  Thousands  of  sol- 
diers are  to-day  turning  aside  in  the  march  of  life  to  visit  the 
silent  encampments  of  dead  comrades  who  once  fought  by  their 
side.  From  many  thousand  homes,  whose  light  was  put  out 
when  a  soldier  fell,  there  go  forth  to-day  to  join  these  solemn 
processions  loving  kindred  and  friends,  from  whose  heart  the 
shadow  of  grief  will  never  be  lifted  till  the  light  of  the  eternal 
world  dawns  upon  them.  And  here  are  children,  little  chil- 
dren, to  whom  the  war  left  no  father  but  the  Father  above.  By 
the  most  sacred  right,  theirs  is  the  chief  place  to-day.  They 
come  with  garlands  to  crown  their  victor  fathers.  I  will  delay 
the  coronation  no  longer. 


1 


TAXATION    OF    UNITED    STATES    BONDS. 

SPEECH    DELIVERED    IN    THE    HOUSE    OF    REPRESENTATIVES 

July  15,  1868. 


Propositions  to  tax  the  bonds  of  the  United  States  were  common  in 
the  period  reaching  from  the  close  of  the  war  to  the  resumption  of  specie 
payments  (1865  ^0  1879).  Sometimes  they  sprang  from  the  strong  re- 
pudiation tendencies  so  rife  in  that  period,  and  sometimes  from  an  imper- 
fect understanding  of  the  legal  and  economical  elements  involved  in  the 
question.  Several  such  schemes,  diflering  in  details  but  agreeing  in  the 
end  to  be  reached,  were  brought  forward  in  the  House  of  Representa- 
tives in  the  second  session  of  the  Fortieth  Congress.  As  the  number  of 
these  schemes,  and  the  hold  that  they  took  of  the  House  and  the  coun- 
try, led  to  the  following  speech,  it  will  be  well  to  mention  several  of  them. 

February  14,  1868,  Mr.  John  A.  Logan,  of  Illihois,  introduced  a  bill 
providing  that  from  and  after  the  ist  of  June,  1868,  all  United  States 
bonds  should  pay  an  internal  tax  of  two  per  cent  per  annum.  As  there 
was  no  apparent  prospect  of  reaching  this  bill  that  session,  Mr.  F.  A. 
Pike,  of  Maine,  June  25,  offered  in  Committee  of  the  Whole  the 
amendment  to  the  Internal  Tax  Bill  which  is  quoted  in  the  following 
speech,  and  which  was  niled  out  of  order.  The  Holman  amendment, 
offered  the  next  day,  making  the  rate  of  tax  sixteen  and  two  thirds  per 
cent,  was  also  ruled  out  Mr.  B.  F.  Butler,  of  Massachusetts,  now  moved 
to  strike  out  certain  words  from  one  of  the  sections  of  the  Tax  Bill,  the 
effect  of  which  would  be  to  make  the  bonds  held  by  the  national  banks 
taxable  at  the  rate  of  one  half  of  one  per  cent  per  annum.  This  motion 
was  the  occasion  upon  which  Mr.  Pike  made  the  remarks  commented 
upon  by  Mr.  Garfield  in  the  following  speech.  June  29th,  Mr.  Amasa 
Cobb,  of  Wisconsin,  offered  this  resolution :  "  That  the  Committee  of 
Ways  and  Means  be,  and  they  are  hereby,  instructed  to  report  without 
tnmecessary  delay  a  bill  levying  a  tax  of  at  least  ten  per  cent  on  the 
interest  of  the  bonds  of  the  United  States,  to  be  assessed  and  collected 
annually  by  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  and  such  of  his  subordinates 
as  may  be  charged  with  the  duty  of  paying  the  interest  on  the  bonded 


328       TAXATION  OF  UNITED  STATES  BONDS. 

Indebtedness  of  the  United  States."  After  motions  to  lay  thui  resolu- 
tion on  the  table,  and  to  refer  it  to  the  Committee  of  Ways  and  Means, 
had  been  voted  down,  it  was  adopted.  July  2d,  a  bill  was  reported  in 
harmony  with  this  resolution,  the  committee  taking  pains  to  say  in  their 
report  (quoted  by  Mr.  Garfield  below),  that  they  acted  only  in  obedi- 
ence to  positive  orders,  and  that,  as  members  of  die  House,  they  should 
resist  the  passage  of  die  biU  that  they  thus  reported.  No  action  was 
had  upon  this  biQ.  July  14th,  the  House  bemg  in  Committee  of  the 
Whole  upon  the  state  of  the  Union,  Mr.  Butler  made  a  lengthy  speech 
in  advocacy  of  the  principle  involved  Mr.  Garfield  replied  both  to  him 
and  to  Mr.  Pike,  also  in  committee,  the  day  following. 


"  We  denounce  all  forms  of  repudiation  as  a  national  crime  ;  and  the  national  honor  re- 
quires the  payment  of  the  public  inddytedness,  in  iht  uttermost  good  faitky  to  all  creditors  at 
home  and  abroad,  fut  only  according  to  the  letter,  htt  the  spirit,  of  the  lawn  under  wkick  it 
was  contracted:*  ^ReftMican  Platform  (lifA). 

"  We  agreed  to  pay  the  interest  specified  in  the  bonds,  and  a  rdate  of  interest  is,  so  £ar,  a 
repudiation  of  the  contract  If  we  agreed  to  pay  six  per  cent,  let  us  pay  it  Let  us  not  pay 
five,  and  tdl  the  creditors  we  have  taken  the  other  one  per  cent  and  put  it  into  the  national 
treasury.  That  b  not  keeping  Hat  public  faith.  We  may  as  well  deduct  from  the  principal 
as  from  the  interest"  —  Speech  of  Hon,  F,  A,  Pike  in  the  House  of  Representatives,  Decem- 
ber 17, 1867. 

MR.  CHAIRMAN,  —  I  sympathize  with  every  gentleman 
who  has  honored  the  speakers  of  the  evening  by  sitting 
in  this  hall,  with  the  mercury  at  ninety-three  degrees,  to  listen 
to  a  financial  debate.  But  the  subject  discussed  last  evening 
by  the  gentleman  from  Massachusetts  ^  is  of  such  transcendent 
importance,  and  the  views  he  submitted  to  the  House  seem  to 
me  of  so  very  singular  a  character  in  some  of  their  aspects,  that 
I  feel  justified  in  asking  your  attention  to  what  I  shall  say  in 
answer. 

I  ought  to  say  that  I  had  already  prepared  a  brief  in  answer 
to  a  speech,  not  delivered,  but  printed  by  the  gentleman  from 
Maine,^  on  this  same  subject,  not  many  days  ago.  And  as  the 
gentleman  from  Massachusetts,  in  his  speech  last  evening,  in- 
dorsed almost  every  position  taken  by  the  gentleman  from 
Maine,  especially  his  statements  in  regard  to  the  history  of 
English  taxation  as  a  precedent  for  the  proposed  measure, 
I  can  do  no  better  than  to  consider,  first,  the  points  made  by 
the  gentleman  from  Maine,  and  then  notice  any  special  points 
made  in  addition  by  the  gentleman  from  Massachusetts. 

1  Mr.  Butler.  s  Mr.  Pike. 


TAXATION  OF  UNITED  STATES  BONDS.       329 

I  desire  in  the  outset  to  disclaim  any  purpose  or  wish  to 
exempt  from  its  full  and  proper  share  of  taxation  any  species 
of  property  in  the  United  States,  and  least  of  all  that  kind  of 
property  which  is  not  actively  employed  in  the  production  of 
national  wealth.  I  am  not  the  defender  of  any  particular  class 
of  property,  or  property-holders.  I  seek,  rather,  to  defend  the 
truth  of  history  as  it  bears  on  this  subject,  and  to  defend  our 
financial  system  from  a  most  dangerous  innovation,  ruinous  alike 
to  the  revenue  and  to  the  public  credit 

Let  us  examine,  for  a  moment,  the  history  of  the  issue  raised 
by  these  gentlemen,  in  order  to  ascertain  precisely  what  it  is. 

The  feeling  has  been,  and  still  is,  very  general  throughout 
the  country,  that  the  holders  of  our  national  bonds  do  not  bear 
an  equal  share  of  the  burdens  of  taxation,  and  many  plans  have 
been  proposed  to  readjust  our  financial  machinery  so  as  to  levy 
on  that  class  of  the  community  a  heavier  tax  than  they  now 
pay.  Nothing  is  more  gratifying  to  a  representative  than  to  be 
able  to  meet  and  satisfy  a  popular  demand.  But  how  to  meet 
this  one  lawfully,  honestly,  and  wisely,  has  been,  and  still  is,  a 
matter  of  great  difficulty.  The  Democratic  party  once  pro- 
posed that  the  States  should  tax  the  bonds,  as  they  tax  real  and 
personal  property.  But  the  law  creating  the  bonds  specially 
declares  them  exempt  from  all  State  and  municipal  taxation, 
and  even  if  the  law  were  silent  on  the  subject,  the  Constitution 
of  the  United  States  interposes  to  prevent  it.  In  a  long  line  of 
judicial  decisions,  extending  over  nearly  half  a  century,  it  has 
been  again  and  again  declared,  by  the  Supreme  Court,  that 
such  taxation  is  forbidden  by  the  Constitution. 

The  payment  of  the  bonds  in  depreciated  paper  currency 
has  been  another  favorite  plan  for  reaching  the  same  result; 
but  that  dishonest  scheme  has  been  severely  if  not  fatally  dam- 
aged by  the  noble  declarations  of  the  Chicago  Convention,  and 
by  the  refusal  of  the  late  Democratic  Convention  to  nominate 
the  most  prominent  supporter  of  the  scheme  itself.* 

Many  other  schemes,  which  I  need  not  stop  to  enumerate, 
have  been  offered  during  the  present  session,  looking  to  the 
same  ultimate  result,  such  as  taxing  the  principal  of  the  public 
debt  by  Congress,  and  other  similar  plans.  I  will  only  state 
particularly  those  propositions  recently  made  that  have  resulted 
in  the  passage  of  a  resolution  by  this  House,  which  I  believe 

1  Mr.  George  H.  Pendleton,  of  Ohio. 


330       TAXATION  OF  UNITED  STATES  BONDS. 

the  House  will  not  sanction  when  it  has  maturely  reviewed  and 
considered  the  subject. 

On  the  25th  of  June,  while  the  bank  section  of  the  internal 
revenue  tax  bill  was  before  the  House,  the  gentleman  from 
Maine  offered  an  amendment  in  these  words :  "  That  upon  all 
interest  arising  from  bonds  of  the  United  States  there  shall  be 
levied,  collected,  and  paid  a  duty  of  ten  per  cent  on  the  amount 
of  such  interest,  and  the  Treasurer  of  the  United  States,  and 
such  subordinate  officers  as  shall  be  charged  with  the  payment 
of  interest,  shall  assess  and  collect  the  duty  hereby  levied."  It 
was  ruled  out  of  order,  as  not  germane  to  the  bill  then  pend- 
ing. The  financial  leader  of  the  Democratic  party  on  this  floor  ^ 
came  to  his  support  the  next  day,  by  offering  a  proposition 
differing  from  the  above  only  in  this,  —  that  it  fixed  the  rate 
of  taxation  at  sixteen  and  two  thirds  per  cent.  This  was  also 
ruled  out  of  order.  Still  later,  the  gentleman  from  Massachu- 
setts offered  an  amendment  to  the  bank  section  of  the  tax  bill 
which  was  in  order,  and  under  the  cover  of  which  the  three  gen- 
tlemen discussed  their  several  projects.  Their  labor  was  not 
lost,  though  another  has  reaped  whatever  of  glory  may  be  sup- 
posed to  result  from  the  enterprise.  The  substance  of  their 
schemes  was  embodied  in  a  resolution  of  peremptory  instruc- 
tions to  the  Committee  of  Ways  and  Means  to  bring  in  a  bill 
levying  a  direct  tax  of  ten  per  cent  on  the  interest  of  the  pub- 
lic debt,  and  requiring  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  and  his 
subordinates  to  withhold  that  amount  when  the  coupons  were 
presented  for  payment.  This  resolution  was  introduced  into  the 
House  on  the  29th  of  June  by  the  gentleman  from  Wisconsin,^ 
and  was  passed  under  the  previous  question,  without  a  word  of 
debate  being  permitted.  Every  Democrat  present  save  one 
voted  for  it. 

Though  the  desire  has  been  very  general,  I  may  perhaps 
say  almost  universal,  among  the  members  of  this  Congress,  to 
lay  a  heavier  burden  of  taxation  on  the  holders  of  bonds,  yet 
the  House  had  been  restrained  from  such  measures  as  the 
Cobb  resolution  by  a  sentiment  deeply  ingrained  in  the  Anglo- 
Saxon  character,  that  it  is  honest  to  pay  what  we  fairly  and 
lawfully  promise,  and  dishonest  to  refuse.  But  the  gentleman 
from  Maine  undertook  to  remove  that  difficulty  by  assuring 
the  House  that  Great  Britain   has  long  been  doing  precisely 

1  Mr.  Holman.  a  Mr.  Cobb. 


TAXATION  OF  UNITED  STATES  BONDS.      331 

the  thing  he  recommended.  I  have  no  doubt  that  many  mem- 
bers, relying  on  the  accuracy  of  the  gentleman's  statements, 
were  reheved  from  ethical  difficulties  which  would  otherwise 
have  prevented  their  voting  for  the  resolution.  The  speech, 
though  not  delivered  in  full,  was  printed  in  the  Globe,  from 
manuscript  elaborately  prepared,  and  was  directed  to  the  de- 
fence of  his  proposed  amendment,  which  I  have  already  quoted. 
He  offers  what  he  calls  three  "  reasons  "  in  support  of  his  prop- 
osition. His  second  and  third  are  purely  negative  arguments,  if 
arguments  at  all,  and  amount  substantially  to  this :  that  as  the 
Constitution  docs  noty  and  Congress  cannot^  confer  upon  the 
States  the  power  to  tax  the  bonds  of  the  United  States,  and  as 
he  and  those  who  agree  with  him  have  hitherto  been  defeated 
in  their  attempts  to  levy  a  direct  tax  of  one  per  cent  on  the 
capital  of  the  public  debt,  there  is  no  other  method  of  reaching 
their  object  except  the  one  now  proposed ;  namely,  to  levy  a 
direct  tax  on  the  interest  of  the  public  debt,  by  declaring  that 
the  government  will  hereafter  pay  but  ninety  per  cent  of  the 
interest  it  has  promised  to  pay. 

The  first  and  only  positive  one  of  his  three  **  reasons  "  is  the 
English  precedent.  This  statement  is  most  surprising.  Doubt- 
less many  members  were  gratified  to  hear  it ;  but  I  know  of  but 
one  who  indorsed  it  as  true.  The  gentleman  from  Massachu- 
setts, a  few  days  after,  in  speaking  of  the  Cobb  resolution,  said, 
*'The  tax  which  the  resolution  proposes  is  the  same  as  the 
English  government  imposes  on  its  bonds." 

That  a  gentleman  in  the  heat  of  debate,  or  without  reflection, 
should  make  such  a  statement,  would  not  be  remarkable.  But 
the  gentleman  from  Maine  undertook  to  speak  by  authority, 
giving  quotations  from  the  English  statutes,  and  citations  from 
financial  history.  He  arranged  his  summary  of  the  subject 
under  five  separate  heads,  and  made  his  assertion  as  if  with  the 
full  assurance  of  knowledge.  After  a  careful  examination,  I 
am  compelled  to  say  that  I  have  never  seen  so  many  miscon- 
ceptions and  perversions  of  so  important  a  subject  crowded  into 
the  same  space.  That  I  may  do  the  gentleman  no  injustice,  I 
quote  his  words :  — 

"  The  income  statute  of  5  Victoria  is  very  elaborate,  occupying  a  hun- 
dred and  twenty  pages,  with  minute  details  of  different  subjects  of  taxa- 
tion and  modes  of  collection. 

"Schedule  B  provides  that  upon  incomes  from  landed  estates — and 


332       TAXATION  OF  UNITED  STATES  BONDS. 

from  this  source  some  of  the  largest  English  incomes  are  derived — there 
shall  be  levied  two  and  a  half  pence  upon  eveiy  twenty  shillings  of  value. 

''Schedule  C  is  as  follows:  'Upon  all  profits  arising  from  annuities, 
dividends,  and  shares  of  annuities  payable  to  any  person,  body  politic  or 
corporate,  company  or  society,  whether  corporate  or  not  corporate,  out 
of  any  public  revenue,  there  shall  be  charged  yearly  for  every  twenty 
shillings  of  the  amount  thereof  the  sum  of  seven  pence,  without  deduc- 
tion.*     

The  effect  of  these  English  statutes  is,  — 

I.  A  larger  tax  is  assessed  upon  the  holders  of  property  in  the  pub- 
lic debt  than  upon  the  holders  of  landed  estates. 

"  2.  Every  lK>lder  of  the  debt,  whether  resident  in  Great  Britain  or  not, 
is  assessed. 

"3.  As  a  portion  of  the  public  debt  of  England  is  in  terminable  annu- 
ities, to  that  extent  the  principal  of  the  debt  is  taxed,  and  diat  whether 
the  holder  resides  in  Great  Britain  or  abroad.  Leon  Levi,  one  of  the 
most  eminent  of  English  writers  on  finance,  mentions  this  specialty  of 
British  taxation. 

"  4.  As  the  payment  of  the  interest  of  the  debt  is  intrusted  to  the 
Banks  of  England  and  Ireland,  the  East  India  and  the  South  Sea  Com- 
panies, and  the  Commissioners  for  the  Reduction  of  the  Debt,  the  effect 
of  putting  this  tax  into  their  hands  to  assess  and  collect  is  nearly  the 
same  as  it  would  be  in  our  case  to  deduct  it  from  the  coupons.  I  have, 
in  my  amendment,  followed  the  idea  of  the  British  statute,  and  charged 
the  Treasurer  with  these  duties. 

"  5.  Schedule  C  provides  for  payment  of  tax  'without  deduction.'  In 
case  of  other  property,  it  is  provided  by  the  statute  that  income  up  to  a 
certain  amount  is  not  taxed.  In  our  case,  all  incomes  under  ^1,000  are 
not  taxed.    The  English  limit  is  somewhat  less. 

"It  is  evident  that  my  proposition  is  clearly  within  the  English  ex- 
ample." ^ 

The  gentleman  owes  it  to  the  House  and  to  the  country  to 
explain  why  he  drew  the  authority  for  his  statements  from  the 
statute  of  5  and  6  Victoria,  a  statute  passed  in  1842,  and,  by  its 
terms,  to  continue  in  force  but  three  years ;  and  which,  with  the 
exception  of  some  of  the  administrative  sections,  was  repealed 
fifteen  years  ago.  The  very  passage  which  the  gentleman 
quotes  in  reference  to  the  taxation  of  interest  on  the  public 
debt,  is  not  now  the  law  of  England,  and  has  not  been  for 
fifteen  years. 

Mr.  Pike.  If  the  gentleman  will  allow  me,  Sir  Robert  Peel's  law  of 
1842  took  this  schedule  from  Pitt's  law  of  1803.     Gladstone  subse- 

>  Congressional  Globe,  June  26^  1868,  pp.  3531 » 3532. 


TAXATION  OF  UNITED  STATES  BONDS.      333 

qpeo&f  adopted  the  same  schedule.  He  amended  the  income  law,  but 
it  was  in  particulais  I  did  not  comment  upon.  Consequently,  the  state- 
ments I  quoted  from  Peel's  law,  and  which  were  also  in  Gladstone's  law, 
were  propeily  quoted,  because  they  are  to-day  the  income  law  of  Great 
Britain.  The  £u:t  is,  the  law  of  1842  is  the  income  law  that  is  usually 
quoted,  unless  as  to  the  few  particulars  in  which  it  was  changed  by 
Ghdstme's  law. 

I  will  not  linger  on  this  point,  but  only  repeat  what  I  have 
already  said,  that  the  very  section  which  the  gentleman  quoted 
was  repealed  fifteen  years  ago,  and,  except  some  of  the  admin- 
istrative sections,  Gladstone's  law  of  1853  has  been  the  basis 
of  all  subsequent  legislation  on  the  subject  But  against  the 
gottleman's  statements  I  bring  charges  far  more  serious  than 
that  of  quoting  a  dead  law.  He  has  utterly  misrepresented 
the  law  which  he  attempts  to  quote. 

I.  To  prove  his  assertion  that  a  larger  tax  is  assessed  on 
holders  of  property  in  the  public  debt  than  on  holders  of  landed 
estates,  he  asserts  that  Schedule  B  taxes  income  on  landed  es- 
tates only  two  and  one  half  pence  in  the  pound ;  while  Schedule 
C  taxes  interest  on  the  public  debt  seven  pence  in  the  pound. 
On  the  very  page  of  the  statute  from  which  he  quoted  stood, 
in  plain  print,  the  following:  "  Schedule  A.  For  all  lands,  tene- 
ments, and  hereditaments  or  heritages  in  Great  Britain,  there 
shall  be  charged  yearly,  in  respect  of  the  property  thereof, 
for  every  twenty  shillings  of  the  annual  value  thereof,  the  sum 
of  seven  pence." 

He  utterly  misrepresented  Schedule  B,  which,  if  quoted, 
would  be  fatal  to  his  case,  and  quoted  Schedule  C  in  full,  thus 
giving  the  appearance  of  accuracy  to  his  statement.  Schedule 
B  levies  a  tax  not  on  the  ownership,  but  on  the  occupation  of 
land,  —  on  the  annual  profits  of  the  tenant  farmer  over  and 
above  the  rent  he  pays.  There  are  five  schedules  in  the  Eng- 
lish income  tax,  and  the  profits  arising  under  all  are  taxed,  and 
have  always  been  taxed,  at  the  same  rate,  except  those  under 
Schedule  B,  which  are  placed  at  a  less  rate  as  a  favor  to  labor- 
ing men,  the  renters  and  farmers  of  land. 

Mr,  Butler.  How  would  it  help  the  poor  man  who  rented  land  to 
tax  the  rent  that  went  into  the  owner's  pocket? 

The  farmers,  the  laboring  men,  were  taxed  only  half  as  much 
on  the  profits  of  their  labor  as  the  owners  of  the  land  were  taxed 


334       TAXATION  OF  UNITED  STATES  BONDS. 

on  their  profits  from  rent,  and  thus  the  poor  man  was  helped. 
A  difference  was  made  between  rents  in  Scotland  and  in  Eng- 
land, because  of  the  difference  in  the  mode  of  charging.  In 
one  of  the  countries  the  landlords  had  to  pay  the  tax,  and  in 
the  other  the  tenant.  For  that  reason  a  difference  was  made 
between  the  Scottish  and  English  farmers.  But  the  gentleman 
from  Maine  quotes  the  Scottish  tax  under  Schedule  B,  omitting 
the  English,  which  is  one  penny  in  the  pound  higher. 

Mr.  Pike.  If  the  gentleman  will  allow  me  a  moment  The  English 
law  always  has  been,  not  an  income  tax  alone,  but  a  property  and  in- 
come tax.  This  is  the  style  of  it,  —  "  Property  and  income."  I  was 
discussing  the  income  part.  That  part  contained  four  schedules,  begin- 
ning with  Schedule  B.  The  first  schedule  that  the  gentleman  speaks  of 
now  is  the  property  schedule,  and  is  a  tax  on  the  value  of  the  land, 
somewhat  similar  to  our  real  estate  tax  of  1 86 1.  But  by  our  constitution 
we  can  have  no  such  property  tax  as  the  English,  because  with  us  it  must 
be  levied  in  proportion  to  the  population.  I  spoke  also  of  the  amount  of 
these  income  taxes.  Let  me  say  that  the  largest  income  retumed  under 
any  one  single  item  under  Peel's  law  was  derived  ftom  this  veiy  Sched- 
ule B.  My  statement  was  not  about  owners  of  land,  but  simply  of  hold- 
ers of  land.  The  holders  of  land  hold  it  by  long  leases,  and  are  one  class 
of  people,  and  the  owners  of  the  land,  who  are  taxed  by  rack-rent,  are 
another  class,  and  on  them  the  real  estate  tax  is  charged.  That  was  the 
reason  why  I  mentioned  Schedule  B,  and  not  Schedule  A. 

My  friend,  I  fear,  has  not  helped  his  case  by  what  he  has  just 
said.  In  the  first  place,  he  is  mistaken  in  supposing  that  Sched- 
ule A  does  not  impose  an  income  tax,  but  a  tax  on  property. 
It  is  no  property  tax.  I  will  read  from  the  language  of  the  stat- 
ute :  **  Schedule  A.  For  all  lands,  tenements,  etc.,  there  shall 
be  charged  yearly,  in  respect  of  the  property  thereof,  for  every 
twenty  shillings  of  annual  value  thereof,  the  sum  of  seven 
pence."  The  tax  is  levied  on  the  annual  value,  the  rental  value, 
the  annual  income  arising  from  the  realty.  It  is  an  income  tax 
throughout ;  a  tax  on  income,  whether  arising  from  property  or 
business,  capital  or  labor.  In  the  early  years  of  the  tax  there 
were  no  subdivisiohs  at  all,  and  these  schedules  were  intro- 
duced to  enable  the  assessors  to  ascertain  more  certainly  the 
amount  of  incomes  in  the  kingdom. 

Mr.  Pike.  I  would  ask  the  gentleman  whether  that  Schedule  A,  so 
far  as  it  is  a  land  tax,  is  not  a  tax  by  rack-rent? 

Not  at  all. 


TAXATION  OF  UNITED  STATES  BONDS.       335 

Mr.  Pike.  I  say  that  the  English  authorities  everywhere  specify  it 
as  a  tax  by  rack-rent 

The  gentleman  is  quite  mistaken.  If  an  owner  rents  his  land, 
his  income  from  it  is  estimated  on  the  rental  value ;  but  if  he 
fanns  his  own  land,  he  is  taxed  under  Schedule  A,  according  to 
an  assessment  made  on  its  annual  value,  and  he  is  also  taxed 
under  Schedule  B  on  the  profit  he  makes  from  farming  it 
himself.  It  is  the  income  in  both  cases  which  bears  the  tax. 
Under  Schedule  A,  income  from  real  estate  is  taxed.  Under 
Schedule  B,  income  from  farm  labor. 

Mr.  Pke.  Will  the  gentleman  allow  me  ?  I  know  he  desires  to  state 
the  case  ^urly.  He  speaks  of  Schedule  A  as  if  it  was  one  item.  Sched- 
ule B  is  one  item,  but  Schedule  A  contains  fifty-four  different  items. 
Among  those  items  are  mortgages  on  houses,  lands,  etc.,  railways, 
canals,  coalmines,  fisheries,  iron- works,  and  other  items  of  that  sort, 
making  fifty-four  different  items  that  go  to  make  up  the  aggregate  of 
Schedule  A. 

That  makes  the  case  all  thg  stronger,  for  the  gentleman  him- 
self exhibits  the  fact  that  fifty-four  items  are  items  of  landed 
property,  —  real  estate ;  and  the  tax  is  levied,  as  I  have  shown, 
not  on  the  property,  but  on  the  annual  income  from  it. 

Mr.  Pike.  Schedule  B,  under  Peel's  act,  yielded  ;^46, 769,000,  and 
the  highest  item  in  Schedule  A  was  ;^45, 750,000.  I  quote  from  Se- 
nior's Income  Tax  Law. 

The  gentleman's  figures  cannot  possibly  be  correct,  for  I 
have  before  me  the  full  official  records  of  the  assessment  and 
product  of  the  income  tax  from  1798  down  to  1863.  I  will 
quote  from  them  in  a  moment. 

The  gentleman  refers  to  Schedule  B  as  the  source  of  some  of 
the  largest  English  incomes."  In  this  he  is  greatly  mistaken. 
Nearly  two  thirds  of  all  who  are  assessed  under  it  are  exempted 
by  reason  of  their  small  incomes.  Levi,  in  his  work  on  Tax- 
ation, says :  "  Of  nearly  seven  hundred  thousand  persons 
assessed  under  this  schedule  [B],  only  about  two  hundred 
and  eighty  thousand  are  charged."  ^  This  shows  clearly  that 
the  incomes  under  Schedule  B  arc  those  of  small  farmers,  and 
not  the  **  largest  English  incomes,"  as  the  gentleman  asserts. 

Mr.  Pike.  I  did  not  say  the  largest  individual  incomes,  but  the  largest 
income  in  the  gross. 

^  On  Taxation,  (London,  i860,)  p.  151. 


336      TAXATION  OF  UNITED  STATES  BONDS. 

The  gentleman's  statement  is  incorrect  in  either  case,  whether 
applied  to  individual  incomes  or  to  the  total  amount  of  incomes 
arising  under  this  schedule. 

In  Sir  Morton  Feto's  work  on  Taxation  ^  the  whole  amount 
assessed  under  the  five  schedules  of  the  income  tax  laws  in 
1861  is  stated  in  tabular  form.  The  amount  under  Schedule  A 
is  ;f  1 3 1,680^7;  under  Schedule  B,  ;f 3 3, 128,296.  From  a  still 
later  English  work  '  I  find  that  the  total  amount  of  British  in- 
comes, exclusive  of  Ireland,  on  which  taxes  were  assessed,  under 
the  different  schedules,  in  1862-63,  were  as  follows:  — 

A.  Ownership  of  land ;£x3<^9o6i,575 

B.  Occupation  of  land 16,052,671 

C.  Dividends •  29,528,215 

D.  Trades  and  professions 93>322,864 

E.  Salaries,  pensions,  etc. X9»463,035 

;£•  284,428,360 

From  this  it  will  be  seen  that  the  incomes  under  Schedule  B 
amount  to  but  one  eighth  as  much  as  those  under  Schedule  A, 
where  the  great  incomes  are  found,  and  that  Schedule  B  is  the 
smallest  of  the  five. 

2.  The  gentleman  asserts  that,  though  under  all  the  other 
schedules  incomes  below  a  certain  amount  are  wholly  exempt 
from  taxation,  yet  on  incomes  arising  under  Schedule  C  the  tax 
must  be  paid  without  deduction.  In  answer  to  this  statement, 
I  affirm  that  such  is  not  now  and  never  was  the  law  of  England. 
The  very  act  to  which  the  gentleman  appeals  provided  that 
incomes  less  than  one  hundred  and  fifty  pounds  should  be 
wholly  exempt  from  the  tax ;  and  if  any  part  of  it  had  been 
paid,  it  should  be  refunded.  Here  is  the  passage  from  his  own 
authority,  Statute  5  and  6  Victoria,  c.  35. 

"Sec.  163.  That  any  person  charged  or  chargeable  to  the  duties 
granted  by  this  act,  either  by  assessment,  or  by  way  of  deduction  fi-om 
any  rent,  annuity,  interest,  or  other  annual  payment  to  which  he  may  be 
entitled,  who  shall  prove  before  the  Commissioners  for  General  Purposes, 
in  the  manner  hereinafter  mentioned,  that  the  aggregate  annual  amount 
of  his  income,  estimated  according  to  the  several  rules  and  directions  of 
this  act,  is  less  than  one  hundred  and  fifty  pounds,  shall  be  exempted 
from  the  said  duties,  and  shall  be  entitled  to  be  repaid  the  amount  of  all 

1  Taxation;  an  Inquiry  into  our  Financial  Policy,  (London,  1863,)  p.  76. 
■  Fiscal  Legislation,  by  John  Noble,  (London,  1867,)  P*  ^S^. 


TAXATION  OF  UNITED   STATES  BONDS.       337 

deductions  or  payments  on  account  thereof  in  the  manner  hereinafter 
directed/*  etc. 

Under  that  law,  when  holders  of  the  public  funds  received 
their  interest,  the  Bank,  as  the  fiscal  agent  of  the  government, 
withheld  the  amount  of  the  income  tax  without  deduction ;  but, 
on  making  proof  to  the  Commissioners  of  the  Inland  Revenue 
that  his  income,  from  all  sources,  was  less  than  one  hundred  and 
fifty  pounds,  the  fundholder  was  paid  the  full  amount  which 
had  been  withheld  by  the  Bank.  The  gentleman  has  evidently 
confounded  "  deduction "  with  "  exemption,"  for  he  speaks  as 
though  no  exemption  whatever  was  made  under  Schedule  C. 
In  addition  to  the  exemption  of  all  incomes  under  one  hundred 
and  fifty  pounds,  there  were  wholly  exempted  from  taxation  un- 
der that  schedule  the  profits  accruing  to  six  classes :  i .  Friendly 
societies;  2.  Savings  banks;  3.  Charitable  institutions;  4.  Com- 
missioners of  the  Public  Debt;  5.  The  Queen;  6.  Ministers 
from  foreign  countries.^  The  words  **  without  deduction  '* 
prohibited  only  the  Bank,  not  the  Commissioners  of  Revenue, 
from  making  the  deduction.  In  the  statute  of  16  and  17  Victo- 
ria (1853)  these  words  are  omitted,  because  that  law  provided 
that  the  Commissioners  might  furnish  the  Bank  with  a  list  of 
fundholders  whose  incomes  were  entitled  to  exemption,  and 
from  such  the  Bank  should  withhold  no  part  of  the  interest. 

Mr.  PncE.  Pitt's  law  of  1803  levied  a  tax  of  five  per  cent.  It  was 
subsequently  raised,  in  1806,  to  ten  per  cent,  and  it  was  collected  in 
exactly  the  way  the  gentleman  says  no  tax  ever  was  collected.  That  is, 
it  was  collected  at  the  Bank.  And  more  than  that,  under  Schedule  C,  it 
was  collected  in  full,  and  no  exemption  was  allowed ;  exactly  as  I  have 
stated.  And  under  Schedule  D  all  incomes  from  fifty  up  to  one  him- 
dred  and  fifty  pounds  were  exempted.  But  the  exemptions  were  limited 
to  profits  derived  from  "trades,  professions,  and  offices."  Thus  the 
incomes  from  the  debt  were  collected  in  full,  while  the  incomes  from 
other  sources  have  exemptions  to  a  certain  extent.  I  quote  now  from 
Senior's  Income  Tax  I^w,  page  80. 

Now,  the  gentleman  has  done  precisely  what  I  suspected ;  he 
has  utterly  confounded  the  words  "  deduction  "  and  "  exemp- 
tion," for  I  see  that  he  uses  them  interchangeably.  I  admit  the 
law  says  "  without  deduction  "  ;  but  it  does  not  say  "  without 
exemption,"  and  therein  lies  the  difference  between   the  gen- 

^  See  Stat  5  and  6  Victoria,  c.  35,  sec.  88. 

VOL.  I.  22 


338       TAXATION  OF  UNITED  STATES  BONDS. 

tleman  and  myself.  In  a  subsequent  section  (sec.  88)  of  the 
same  statute,  there  are  six  exemptions  under  Schedule  C,  which 
I  have  already  quoted,  and  this  proves  beyond  controversy 
that  the  words  "  without  deduction*'  do  not  mean  "without  ex- 
emption." From  the  very  volume  which  the  gentleman  holds 
in  his  hand,  (Senior's  Income  Tax  Law,)  I  can  show  him  an  in- 
stance cited  to  illustrate  the  law  in  which  part  of  a  dividend  on 
public  funds,  withheld  by  the  Bank,  was  repaid  to  the  citizen 
when  he  made  proof  that  his  income  from  all  sources  was  less 
than  the  amount  exempted  by  law.  I  think  I  pointed  the  case 
out  to  the  gentleman  a  few  days  ago.  From  the  beginning  of 
the  English  income  tax  down  to  the  present  day,  every  man  has 
been  repaid,  if  he  came  under  the  exemption  clause,  for  all 
moneys  taken  or  withheld  by  the  Bank. 

Mr.  Pike.  Now  let  me  read  what  were  the  provisions  of  the  English 
law  :  "  Up  to  this  time  exemption  had  been  granted  on  incomes  from 
realized  property  under  sixty  pounds  a  year.  This  was  now,  with  few 
exceptions,  repealed  ;  and  entire  exemption  was  limited  to  incomes 
under  fifty  pounds  a  year  in  the  whole;  while  a  graduated  scale  was 
imposed  upon  incomes  between  fifty  pounds  and  one  hundred  and  fifty 
pounds  a  year,  but  limited  to  profits  derived  from  trades,  professions, 
and  offices.  An  official  publication  of  the  time  explains  the  reasons  for 
this  alteration,  as  well  as  some  others  effected  about  the  same  period." 
The  gentleman  will  see  that  I  was  entirely  right,  and  he  entirely  wrong. 

It  is  manifestly  a  commentary,  not  the  law,  that  the  gentle- 
man reads.  What  is  the  date  of  the  law  to  which  the  commen- 
tator refers? 

Mr.  Pike.     It  is  Pitt*s  income  law. 

What  year?  There  are  several  of  Pitt's  laws,  extending  from 
1798  to  1 8 16.  If  the  gentleman  has  found  an  income  law 
passed  in  the  early  years  of  that  period,  when  the  banks  did  not 
collect  any  part  of  the  tax,  his  citation  is  fatal  to  the  position  he 
is  attempting  to  establish. 

Mr.  Pike.     This  was  the  law  for  ten  years. 

The  gentleman  is  mistaken.     I  cannot  yield  further  now. 

I  proceed  to  notice  another  statement  in  the  gentleman's 
printed  speech. 

3.  He  asserts  that  the  principal  of  the  British  debt  is  taxed,  in 
so  far  as  it  consists  of  terminable  annuities ;  and  cites  as  proof 
the  eminent  authority  of  Leon  Levi.     This  statement  is  more 


TAXATION  OF  UNITED  STATES  BONDS.       339 

likely  to  mislead  than  any  other  in  his  speech,  for  it  is  likely  to 
convey  the  impression,  by  insinuation,  that,  while  we  refuse  to 
tax  the  interest  on  our  debt,  the  British  government  tax  both  the 
interest  and  principal  of  theirs.  Now,  I  deny,  in  totOy  that  the 
capital  of  the  British  debt  as  such  is  taxed,  or  ever  was  taxed. 
Indeed,  the  gentleman  does  not  assert,  and  I  am  sure  he  will  not 
assert,  that  it  is  taxed  as  capital ;  but  the  whole  drift  of  his  state- 
ment insinuates  it.  The  only  ground  on  which  he  bases  his  as- 
sertion is  that  a  terminable  annuity  is  a  debt,  a  part  of  the  capital 
of  which  is  virtually  refunded  to  the  holder  each  year,  in  the 
form  of  interest ;  and  as  the  government  taxes  the  proceeds  of 
such  annuities  at  the  same  rate  as  the  proceeds  of  perpetual  an- 
nuities are  taxed,  it  virtually  amounts  to  a  tax  on  capital. 

Mr.  Butler.  Will  the  gentleman  state  again,  if  it  will  not  be  too 
much  trouble  to  him,  what  is  a  terminable  annuity,  as  he  understands  it  ? 

It  is  a  form  of  English  indebtedness  from  which  the  holder 
receives  annually,  for  a  limited  period,  a  larger  sum  than  he 
would  receive  from  a  perpetual  annuity,  which  brings  him  only 
three  per  cent. 

Mr.  Butler.  The  same  difference  that  there  would  be  here  between 
a  three  per  cent  bond  and  a  six  per  cent  bond. 

Not  the  same  difference,  for  one  terminates  altogether  in  a 
given  time,  while  the  other  is  perpetual.  And  the  argument 
which  the  gentleman  attempts  to  make  is  this :  that  a  part  of 
the  capital  is  returned  to  the  holder  in  the  annual  payment,  and 
therefore  the  capital  is  taxed.  My  reply  is,  that,  strictly  speak- 
ing, there  is  no  capital  at  all  in  a  terminable  annuity.  It  is  all 
income,  and  is  taxed  only  as  income.  In  support  of  this  view 
I  refer  to  a  report  published  in  1861  by  Mr.  Robert  Lowe, 
one  of  the  ablest  members  of  the  House  of  Commons.  That 
the  tax  on  terminable  annuities  is  one  of  the  inequalities  in  the 
practical  operation  of  the  English  law,  no  one  will  deny.  For 
twenty  years  English  statesmanship  has  been  baffled  in  the  at- 
tempt to  remedy  this  defect*  In  185 1  and  1852  a  committee  of 
the  House  of  Commons  sat  for  many  months,  and  printed  a 
thousand  pages  of  evidence  on  the  workings  of  the  tax.  An- 
other committee,  in  1861,  after  a  similar  examination,  reported 
a  great  mass  of  evidence.  One  of  the  chief  objects  of  these  in- 
vestigations was  to  devise  a  plan  by  which  this  very  inequality 


340       TAXATION  OF  UNITED  STATES  BONDS. 

might  be  obviated.  But  both  commissions  failed  to  agree  upon 
any  plan,  and  the  Chancellor  of  the  Exchequer  frankly  con- 
fessed that,  with  all  the  light  thus  thrown  upon  the  subject,  he 
saw  no  practicable  method  of  curing  the  defect.  Levi,  whom 
the  gentleman  quotes,  mentions  the  inequality  of  the  tax  when 
applied  to  the  interest  of  terminable  annuities,  not  to  approve, 
but  to  denounce  it;  and  he  denounces  it  because,  in  effect,  it 
approaches  so  nearly  a  tax  on  capital.  But  in  fact  and  in  law 
it  is  no  more  a  tax  on  capital,  than  the  tax  which  the  States  now 
levy  on  the  shares  of  our  national  banks  is  a  tax  on  the  United 
States  bonds,  in  which  the  capital  of  the  banks  is  mainly  invest- 
ed. The  principle  involved  in  both  cases  is  precisely  the  same, 
and  was  clearly  set  forth  by  our  Supreme  Court  in  the  case  of 
Van  Allen  v.  The  Assessors,^  where  it  is  held  that  a  tax  on  the 
shares  is  not  a  tax  on  the  capital  of  the  bank ;  that  the  shares, 
though  based  on  bonds  which  cannot  be  taxed  by  municipal 
authority,  are  a  species  of  property  distinct  from  the  bonds, 
having  many  functions  and  uses  which  the  bonds  have  not.  So 
with  terminable  annuities.  Whatever  elements  may  compose 
them,  it  is  only  when  they  assume  the  form  of  income  that  the 
tax  applies  to  them.  It  is,  therefore,  not  true,  either  in  law  or 
in  fact,  that  the  English  government  taxes  the  principal  of  its 
debt. 

Before  leaving  this  point,  in  order  to  show  to  what  desper- 
ate straits  the  gentlemen  are  reduced  in  their  effort  to  find  a 
precedent  for  taxing  the  principal  of  our  debt,  I  will  state  that 
only  a  small  portion  of  the  British  debt  is  in  terminable  annui- 
ties. The  commission  of  1861  stated  that  the  whole  amount 
did  not  exceed  ;f  10,000,000,  while  the  British  debt  was  nearly 
;f  790,000,000. 

4.  The  gentleman  asserts  that  every  holder  of  the  British 
funds,  whether  citizen  or  foreigner,  is  taxed,  and  hence  con- 
cludes that  we  ought  to  tax  the  foreign  holders  of  our  bonds. 
There  is  just  enough  truth  in  this  statement  to  make  it  danger- 
ous. From  1798  to  1842  every  income-tax  law  of  England  con- 
tained a  clause  specially  exempting  from  taxation  all  income 
from  public  funds  in  the  hands  of  foreigners.  The  law,  as  re- 
vived in  1842  by  Sir  Robert  Peel,  did  not  exempt  foreigners  from 
the  operation  of  the  law.  In  the  debate  on  the  bill,  Peel  said 
that  all  the  tax  which  would  be  collected  from  foreign  holders 

1  3  Wallace,  583,  584. 


TAXATION  OF  UNITED   STATES  BONDS.      341 

would  not  amount  to  more  than  ten  or  twenty  thousand  pounds. 
England  has  long  been  a  lender,  not  a  borrower,  of  money;  she 
has  no  foreign  loan,  and  the  taxation  of  income  from  the  debt 
in  the  hands  of  foreigners  is  hardly  a  practical  question  with 
her.  Among  the  many  changes  which  have  been  made  in  the 
law  since  1842,  I  have  not  been  able  to  ascertain  with  certainty 
what  the  law  now  is;  but  I  incline  to  the  belief  that  foreign 
holders  are  no  longer  taxed.  The  income  tax  was  thoroughly 
revised  in  1853,  and  Mr.  Gladstone,  the  author  of  the  revised  law 
and  then  Chancellor  of  the  Exchequer,  while  speaking  on  this 
very  subject  at  that  time,  said :  — 

"  It  has  been  a  popular  doctrine  to  tax  the  foreigner,  but  I  think  that 
no  person  in  this  House  would  wish  to  tax  the  foreigner  in  this  particu- 
lar form.  It  has  been  a  long-contested  question  with  respect  to  income 
tax  in  England,  whether  the  foreigner  is  not  entitled  to  exemption  alto- 
gether. The  late  Sir  Robert  Peel  subjected  him  to  equal  taxation  in 
1842 ;  but  even  that  proposal  was  strongly  resisted,  and  I  think  every 
member  of  this  House  will  agree  that  it  would  be  very  impolitic  to  lay 
an  exceptional  tax  of  this  kind  upon  the  foreigner."  ^ 

This  shows  that  English  statesmanship  strongly  condemns 
the  policy.  For  us,  a  debtor  nation,  to  adopt  it,  would  be  the 
extreme  of  folly.  Though,  as  I  have  said,  there  are  some 
doubts  as  to  what  the  English  law  now  is,  yet  there  is  a  citizen 
of  this  city  who  has  held  English  funds  within  the  last  year, 
and  who  states  that  he  was  exempted  from  the  tax  on  furnish- 
ing evidence  that  he  was  not  a  British  subject. 

But  whatever  the  British  law  may  be  at  the  present  time  in 
regard  to  taxing  foreigners,  this  will  not  be  denied,  —  that  when- 
ever the  foreigner  has  been  taxed  under  the  income  law,  he  has 
had  the  same  benefits  of  exemptions  and  deductions  as  a  British 
subject.  Even  under  Peel's  law,  the  foreigner  was  exempt  when 
his  income  from  British  sources  was  less  than  one  hundred  and 
fifty  pounds.  This  English  practice  bears  no  analogy  to  the 
scheme  proposed  by  the  gentleman  from  Maine.  To  quote  it 
as  an  argument  is  to  confess  the  weakness  of  his  position. 

If  the  gentleman  wishes  to  find  precedents  for  taxing  govern- 
ment bonds  held  by  foreigners,  I  commend  him  to  the  examples 
of  Austria  and  Italy,  who  have  been  compelled  within  the  last 
two  months  to  adopt  this  policy,  but  offer  as  their  apology  that 

1  Hansard's  Parliamentary  Debates,  Vol.  CXXV.  pp.  I377»  ^378. 


342       TAXATION  OF  UNITED  STATES  BONDS. 

they  are  on  the  verge  of  bankruptcy,  and  are  compelled  to 
choose  between  this  step  and  complete  financial  ruin.  These 
two  kingdoms  are  now,  for  this  act,  ruined  in  credit  and  honor 
by  the  verdict  of  all  civilized  nations.  Moreover,  I  commend 
to  the  gentleman  his  own  speech,  delivered  in  this  House  on 
the  17th  of  December  last,  in  which  he  strongly  opposes  the 
taxation  of  foreign  bondholders. 

In  answer,  therefore,  to  the  gentleman's  assertions,  I  affirm,  — 

1st.  That  there  is  not  now,  and  never  has  been,  a  law  in  Eng- 
land, levying  a  tax  on  the  principal  of  the  public  debt. 

2d.  That  the  interest  on  the  British  debt  is  not  now,  and 
never  was,  taxed,  except  when  it  takes  the  form  and  becomes  a 
part  of  a  taxable  income.  Whenever  there  has  been  no  income 
tax,  there  has  been  no  tax  on  the  interest  of  the  debt.  When- 
ever there  has  been  an  income  tax,  the  interest  arising  from  the 
debt  has  been  taxed  at  the  same  rate,  and  only  the  same,  as  the 
income  from  lands,  hereditaments,  trades,  professions,  salaries, 
pensions,  and  every  other  source,  except  from  the  occupation 
and  farming  of  lands. 

3d.  That  all  the  rules  of  exemption  which  apply  to  other 
sources  of  income  apply  equally  to  income  arising  from  the 
funds.  In  short,  that  the  interest  of  the  debt  is  not  taxed  at 
all  as  such,  but  only  when  it  forms  a  part  of  an  income  amount- 
ing to  more  than  one  hundred  or  one  hundred  and  fifty  pounds, 
or  whatever  the  amount  exempted  by  law  may  be. 

4th.  And,  finally,  that  the  scheme  of  the  gentlemen  from 
Maine,  Massachusetts,  and  Indiana,  which  afterward,  in  sub- 
stance, passed  the  House  as  the  Cobb  resolution,  is  not  within 
the  English  precedent,  nor  within  any  precedent  approved  by 
civilized  nations ;  but,  if  it  becomes  a  law,  will  be  a  direct,  pal- 
pable repudiation  of  $13,000,000  of  the  annual  interest  on  our 
national  debt,  for  the  payment  of  which  the  faith  of  the  nation 
has  been  pledged  in  the  most  solemn  manner. 

The  gentleman  from  Massachusetts  in  his  speech  last  evening 
alleged  that  our  bonds  were  bought  at  a  great  discount,  and  are 
now  at  a  premium,  and  therefore  the  bondholder  could  not 
complain  if  he  should  be  taxed  higher  than  the  holders  of  other 
property.  I  desire  to  remind  the  gentleman,  that  the  English 
bonds  were  negotiated  at  a  much  greater  discount  than  our  own. 
A  late  English  writer  has  shown  that  all  the  debt  incurred  from 
1793  to  1815  was  negotiated  at  a  loss  of  nearly  forty-three  per 


TAXATION  OF  UNITED  STATES  BONDS.        343 

cent,  and  that  for  every  ;f  lOO  of  money  received  from  loans 
during  that  period  the  debt  was  increased  ;f  173.  But*  for  one 
illustrious  fact,  Great  Britain  would  have  fallen  half  a  century 
ago  into  the  abyss  of  hopeless  bankruptcy,  of  irretrievable  finan- 
cial ruin ;  but  for  one  fact,  her  greatness  and  glory  would  now 
exist  only  in  history.  That  fact  is  this:  that  while  she  has 
borne,  for  a  hundred  years,  a  greater  burden  of  debt  and  taxa- 
tion than  any  other  nation,  she  has  kept  her  financial  faith  un- 
tarnished. This  fact  has  enabled  her,  within  the  last  fifty  years, 
to  reduce  the  total  amount  of  her  annual  interest  twenty-five 
per  cent,  while  the  principal  of  her  debt  has  been  reduced  less 
than  nine  per  cent.  In  1817,  her  annual  interest  was  almost 
thirty-four  millions  sterling.  In  1866,  it  was  less  than  twenty- 
six  millions.  She  has  been  able  to  fund  her  debt  again  and 
again  at  a  decreased  rate  of  interest,  and  the  records  of  Thread- 
needle  Street  show  that  the  British  three  per  cent  consols  have 
been,  during  the  last  half-century,  the  standard  stock  of  the 
world.  Though  the  British  debt  is  nearly  fifty  per  cent  greater 
than  ours,  yet  her  annual  interest  in  1867  was  ten  per  cent  less. 
Now,  Mr.  Chairman,  I  have  said  all  I  desire  to  say  in  regard 
to  the  English  precedent.  Though  the  principles  of  political 
morality  cannot  be  changed  by  any  precedent,  yet  I  admit  that 
if  the  gentlemen  had  shown  that  the  English  tax  law  is  framed 
on  the  principle  expressed  in  the  Cobb  resolution,  it  would  be 
a  very  formidable  argument  in  defence  of  that  measure.  Their 
positive  statements  that  it  was  so  had  a  marked  effect  on  the 
opinions  of  members  of  the  House,  and  led  them  to  assent  to 
a  proposition  which  I  do  not  believe  they  will  indorse  after  a 
full  consideration.  I  rejoice,  sir,  that  the  Committee  of  Ways 
and  Means  have  responded  to  the  order  of  the  House  in  a  man- 
ner which  discloses  in  full  the  character  of  the  proposition  which 
these  gentlemen  desire  to  incorporate  in  the  law.  Omitting  the 
bill,  this  is  the  committee's  report,  as  submitted,  July  2d,  by 
Mr.  Hooper. 

"  The  Committee  of  Ways  and  Means,  to  whom  was  referred  the  reso- 
lution of  the  House  instructing  them  to  report  without  unnecessary  delay 
a  bill  lev>'ing  a  tax  of  at  least  ten  per  cent  on  the  interest  of  the  bonds  of 
the  United  States,  to  be  collected  by  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  and 
such  of  his  subordinates  as  maybe  charged  with  the  duty  of  paying  the  in- 
terest on  the  bonded  debt  of  the  United  States,  have  had  the  same  under 
consideration,  and  beg  leave  to  submit  the  following  report  and  bill. 


344       TAXATION  OF  UNITED  STATES  BONDS. 

"The  Committee  of  Ways  and  Means  are  opposed  to  the  proposition 
embraced  in  this  resolution,  and  report  the  bill  only  in  obedience  to  the 
positive  order  of  the  House. 

"  In  the  argument  made  in  the  House  in  favor  of  the  resolution,  the 
English  income-tax  law  was  referred  to  and  quoted.  There  is  a  law 
corresponding  to  that  law  on  the  statute-books  of  this  country,  imposing  a 
tax  on  incomes  of  five  per  cent,  while  the  English  law  is  less  than  three 
per  cent.  But  your  committee  have  been  unable  to  find  in  the  statute- 
books  of  England,  or  any  other  civilized  country,  a  law  that  could  be 
regarded  in  any  way  as  a  precedent  for  the  bill  the  House  have  instruct- 
ed the  committee  to  report,  which,  if  enacted,  will  be  simply  a  law  pro- 
viding for  the  payment  of  a  rate  of  interest  on  the  government  debt  ten 
per  cent  less  than  was  agreed  for,  ten  per  cent  less  than  is  stated  in  the 
bonds,  and  ten  per  cent  less  than  was  pledged  to  be  paid  by  the  solemn 
enactment  of  Congress,  when  the  money  was  required  to  carry  on  a  war 
which  threatened  the  life  of  the  nation. 

"  The  evil  effects  resulting  to  a  nation,  whether  her  national  credit  is 
guarded  and  protected,  or  whether  by  legislation  of  the  character  now 
proposed  the  confidence  of  all  other  civilized  nations  is  forfeited,  may 
not  be  felt  or  appreciated  in  time  of  peace  j  but  the  committee  desire  to 
call  attention  to  the  consequences  that  would  follow  the  passage  of  a  bill 
of  the  character  now  submitted,  in  case  we  should  ever  hereafter  have 
occasion  to  use  our  credit  for  the  purpose  of  providing  means  either  to 
sustain  ourselves  at  home  or  to  defend  ourselves  in  any  collision  with  a 
foreign  power, 

"  The  committee  repeat,  that  in  reporting  the  bill  they  act  in  obedi- 
ence to  the  positive  directions  of  the  House,  and  contrary  to  their  own 
best  judgment.  They  reserve  to  themselves  their  rights,  as  members  of 
the  House,  to  oppose  in  every  possible  way  the  adoption  of  a  measure 
which  they  regard  as  hostile  to  the  public  interest  and  injurious  to  the 
national  character."  ^ 

The  bill  which  the  committee  reported  fully  embodied  the 
spirit  of  the  resolution  instructing  them. 

The  gentleman  from  Massachusetts,  in  his  speech  last  even- 
ing, while  criticising  the  report  of  the  committee,  charged  them 
with  going  out  of  their  way  to  discuss  the  British  law.  Fie  said 
that  the  resolution  sent  to  them  was  passed  without  debate,  and 
under  the  previous  question ;  and  he  asked,  "  What  business  had 
they  to  talk  about  the  English  example  and  the  results  of  it? 
Nobody  raised  that  question."  I  will  tell  him  why  the  com- 
mittee discussed  the  English  law.    When  he  and  his  Democratic 

*  Congressional  Globe,  July  2,  186S,  p.  36S9. 


TAXATION  OF  UNITED  STATES  BONDS.      345 

friends  were  carrying  through  the  measure  for  instructing  the 
committee,  although  the  previous  question  was  pending,  he 
made  a  speech  consisting  of  one  sentence,  in  which  he  declared 
that  this  was  precisely  the  English  method  of  taxing  bonds. 

Mr.  Butler.    No,  sir. 

That  sentence  I  quoted  from  the  Globe,  in  the  first  ten  min- 
utes of  my  speech. 

Mr.  Butler.    The  gentleman  is  not  quoting  it  now.    I  said  rate. 

To  show  that  the  gentleman  is  mistaken,  I  will  read,  if  he  will 
allow  me,  exactly  what  he  said.  I  quote  from  the  Globe  of 
June  29,  1868:  "  Mr.  Butler,  of  Massachusetts.  The  tax  which 
the  resolution  proposes  is  the  same  that  the  English  govern- 
ment imposes  on  its  bonds." 

Mr.  Butler.     Is  that  fair?    Read  the  question  before  it 

There  is  no  question  before  it.     I  will  read :  — 

"Mr.  Butler,  of  Massachusetts,  and  Mr.  Pike  called  for  the  yeas 
and  nays. 

"  The  yeas  and  nays  were  ordered. 

"  Mr.  Garfield.  I  would  suggest  that  the  tax  on  these  bonds  be  made 
one  hundred  per  cent.    That  will  fill  our  Treasury  still  more  rapidly. 

"  Mr.  Butler,  of  Massachusetts.  The  tax  which  the  resolution  pro- 
poses is  the  same  that  the  English  government  imposes  on  its  bonds."  ^ 

Now,  I  ask  any  gentleman  present  if  this  sentence  refers  to 
the  rate,  and  if  it  refers  to  the  rate,  is  it  true?  If  the  explana- 
tion which  the  gentleman  now  gives  of  his  remark  be  correct, 
then  the  remark  itself  is  not  true.  He  can  take  whichever  horn 
of  the  dilemma  he  chooses. 

Mr.  Butler.  For  a  single  moment  In  1806,  first  five  per  cent,  and 
then  raised  to  ten  per  cent. 

Now,  Mr.  Chairman,  that  is  a  striking  example  of  the  gentle- 
man's own  sense  of  fair  argument.  Since  1 8 16  there  has  been  no 
ten  per  cent  income  tax  on  British  funds,  or  any  other  income. 
In  the  war  with  Napoleon,  a  part  of  the  time  the  tax  was  five 
per  cent,  and  a  part  of  the  time  it  was  ten  per  cent;  but  since 
that  war  it  has  never  reached  six  per  cent.  It  was  less  than  six 
per  cent  in  the  Crimean  war,  when  the  tax  was  doubled.  Yet 
the   gentleman   from   Massachusetts   says  in  the  Globe,  from 

1  Page  3589. 


346       TAXATION  OF  UNITED  STATES  BONDS. 

which  I  have  quoted,  "  The  tax  which  the  resolution  proposes 
IS  the  same  that  the  English  government  imposes  on  its  bonds  "  ; 
not  that  they  did  impose  on  their  bonds  fifty  years  ago,  but  "  the 
same  the  English  government  imposes  on  its  bonds  "  now.  I 
deny  that  the  British  government  now  imposes,  or  has  imposed 
for  half  a  century,  a  tax  of  ten  per  cent  on  the  interest  of  its 
bonds ;  and,  as  I  have  already  said,  the  gentleman  plainly  de- 
clared that  the  Cobb  resolution  was  in  accordance  with  the 
English  precedent,  and  that  proposition  I  have  utterly  dis- 
proved. 

I  say  again,  after  such  a  sentence  as  the  gentleman  uttered  in 
the  House,  it  was  eminendy  proper  for  the  Committee  of  Ways 
and  Means  to  refer  to  whatever  instructions  they  had  in  the 
case,  whether  in  the  terms  of  the  resolution  itself,  or  in  the 
remarks  of  those  who  advocated  its  passage.  The  committee 
brought  in  a  report  precisely  in  the  spirit,  and  almost  in  the 
words  of  the  resolution.  They  were  ordered  to  bring  in  with- 
out delay  a  bill  to  levy  a  tax  of  ten  per  cent  on  the  interest  of 
the  public  bonds,  and  to  require  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury 
and  his  subordinates  to  collect  that  tax.  And  the  only  argu- 
ment made  in  favor  of  the  resolution  at  the  time  was  the  decla- 
ration of  the  gentleman  from  Massachusetts  that  it  provided  for 
taxing  the  interest  on  our  bonds  by  the  same  method  that  the 
English  government  taxes  theirs.  They  took  their  instruc- 
tions with  the  accompanying  comment  of  the  gentleman,  and 
brought  in  a  bill  in  strict  accordance  with  their  instructions: 
that  hereafter,  whenever  the  government  of  the  United  States 
pays  interest,  it  shall  withhold  ten  per  cent;  that,  though  it 
promised  to  pay  six  per  cent,  it  shall  pay  but  five  and  four 
tenths  per  cent;  in  short,  that  it  will  pay  but  ninety  per  cent 
of  what  was  promised,  any  law,  bond,  or  contract  to  the  con- 
trary notwithstanding.  The  country  will  tliank  the  Committee 
of  Ways  and  Means  for  the  report  with  which  they  accompa- 
nied the  bill,  and  I  do  not  hesitate  to  declare  that  the  proposi- 
tion sent  to  the  committee  —  though  I  cannot  believe  that  the 
House  so  understood  it  —  was  a  direct  and  palpable  order  to 
repudiate  ten  per  cent  of  the  entire  interest  on  our  debt.  We 
owe  $i30/xx),ooo  of  interest  annually,  and  the  resolution  de- 
clares that  $13,000,000  of  it  we  will  refuse  to  pay.  Mr.  Chair- 
man, I  will  cordially  co-operate  with  any  gentlemen  here  in  any 
honorable  and  proper  effort  to  reduce  the  general  burden  of 


TAXATION  OF  UNITED  STATES  BONDS.       347 

taxation ;  but  on  no  account  and  under  no  circumstances  can  I 
consent  to  such  a  measure  as  that  resolution  demands. 

Mr.  Pike.  Does  the  gentleman  defend  this  remark  of  the  Commit- 
tee of  Ways  and  Means  in  their  report?  "  In  the  argument  made  in  the 
House  in  favor  of  the  resolution,  the  English  income-tax  law  was  referred 
to  and  quoted.  There  is  a  law  corresponding  to  that  [English]  law  on 
die  statute-books  of  this  country,  imposing  a  tax  on  incomes  of  five  per 
cent,  while  the  English  law  is  less  than  three  per  cent."  Does  the  gentle- 
man say  that  that  is  correct  in  fact,  or  in  spirit,  or  in  results  ?  I  say  it  is 
not  correct  in  fact,  in  mode  of  collection,  or  in  results.  It  has  not  a  kin- 
ship to  correctness. 

Now,  Mr.  Chairman,  I  have  not  gone  into  the  special  calcula- 
tion made  in  the  report  of  the  committee,  and  am  not  responsi- 
ble for  its  correctness ;  but  according  to  my  arithmetic,  seven 
pence  in  the  pound  is  less  than  three  per  cent.  The  Committee 
of  Ways  and  Means  take  the  same  view,  but  the  gentleman 
seems  to  think  otherwise. 

Mr.  Pike.  The  tax  by  the  English  law  is  deducted  from  the  payment 
of  interest  at  the  time  it  is  made.  Schedule  C  yielded  during  the  Cri- 
mean war  the  sum  of  about  $9,000,000  in  gold  as  a  deduction  from  the 
amount  of  interest  on  the  British  debt ;  whereas  our  income  tax  is  not 
assessed  on  a  very  large  portion  of  our  debt,  there  being  large  exemp- 
tions by  the  law.  The  whole  amount  owned  by  the  banks  is  expressly 
excluded  by  the  law,  and  we  do  not  collect,  I  venture  to  say,  after  exam- 
ination of  the  returns,  Si, 000,000,  probably  not  §500,000,  whereas  Great 
Britain  collected,  according  to  the  returns,  £1,795,718  during  the  Cri- 
mean war.  It  is  absurd  to  say  or  intimate  that  our  tax  is  larger  than  the 
English,  and  it  will  be  recollected  that  the  interest  on  the  English  debt 
upon  which  the  tax  is  levied  is  about  ten  millions  less  than  our  interest. 

Of  course  I  decline  to  go  into  the  arithmetical  arguments  of 
the  Committee  of  Ways  and  Means,  as  that  is  entirely  aside 
from  the  subject  I  am  discussing.  But  I  have  never  before 
heard  it  denied  that  our  income  law  is  modelled  after  the  Eng- 
lish law.  I  have  shown  that  the  Cobb  resolution  is  not;  and  I 
say  again,  I  am  exceedingly  glad  that  the  Committee  of  Ways 
and  Means  have  uncovered  the  not  quite  transparent  humbug 
oCthat  resolution,  as  I  must  be  permitted  to  call  it 

And  now,  sir,  allow  me  to  say  that  the  gentleman  from  Mas- 
sachusetts endeavored  last  night,  very  adroitly,  to  change  the 
proposition  so  as  to  make  a  new  issue  altogether.  He  said  that 
the   Committee  of  Ways  and  Means  ought  to   have  brought 


348       TAXATION  OF  UNITED  STATES  BONDS. 

m 

in  an  amendment  to  the  income-tax  law,  to  provide  for  with- 
holding at  the  treasury  the  amount  of  income-tax  due  on  the 
interest  arising  from  the  bonds ;   but  instead  of  that  they  had 
brought  in  a  bill  having  no  reference  to  the  income  law,  but 
levying  the  tax  directly  on  the  interest  of  the  bonds.     Now,  sir, 
I  take  this  as  a  confession  that  the  Cobb  resolution  is  not  de- 
fensible, for  I  call  the  House  to  witness  that  not  one  of  the  gen- 
tlemen who  spoke  on  the  subject  gave  the  least  intimation  that 
they  were  amending  or  offering  a  substitute  for  the  income  law. 
There  was  nothing  in  the  resolution  that  had  the  least  reference 
to  the  income  tax.     It  was  clearly  a  measure  aside  from,  and 
independent  of,  the  income  law.     The  tax  it  contemplated  would 
be  in  addition  to  the  income  tax.     Now,  I  do  not  propose  to 
allow  this  escape  from  the  issue  raised.     The  two  propositions 
are  totally  unlike.     So  long  as  we  tax  the  interest  of  the  bonds 
as  a  part  of  the  income  of  citizens,  no  man  can  justly  find  fault 
It  is  not  a  tax  on  the  bonds,  not  even  a  tax  on  the  interest  as 
such,  but  only  a  tax  on  such  part  of  the  interest  as  takes  the 
form,  and  becomes  part,  of  a  taxable  income.     So  long  as  we 
place  income  from  the  bonds  on  the  same  basis  with  income 
from  all  other  sources,  and  tax  by  a  uniform  rule,  subjecting 
all  incomes  to  the  same  deductions,  exemptions,  and  limitations, 
we  are  not  only  within  the  English  precedent,  but  we  are  on  safe 
ground  of  constitutional  right,  where  justice  may  be  done  to  tax- 
payers, and  the  public  credit  will  not  suffer. 

Now,  if  the  House  thinks  it  best  to  double  the  income  tax,  let 
it  be  done.  The  holders  of  bonds  cannot  complain.  Income 
from  bonds  should  bear  its  equal  proportion.  The  Constitution 
of  the  United  States  lays  down  two  rules  on  the  subject  of  taxa- 
tion, namely :  a  direct  tax  on  property  must  be  levied  by  ap- 
portionment; an  indirect  tax  must  be  levied  by  the  rule  of 
uniformity.  It  will  not  be  claimed  that  our  income  tax  is  a 
direct  tax,  —  a  tax  on  property ;  for  it  plainly  falls  under  the 
rule  of  uniformity.  But  the  tax  proposed  by  the  Cobb  resolu- 
tion is  a  tax  on  property,  — a  special,  exceptional  tax,  liable  to 
measureless  abuse.  Should  the  principle  prevail,  to  what  ex- 
treme may  it  not  be  carried  ?  It  is  now  proposed  to  tax  tjie 
interest  of  the  bonds  ten  per  cent.  What  will  hinder  the  next 
Congress  from  making  it  twenty,  forty,  eighty,  or  any  higher 
rate?  Being  exceptional,  it  would  directly  hurt  none  but  the 
public  creditors.     But  under  the  wise  provisions  of  the  Consti- 


TAXATION  OF  UNITED  STATES  BONDS.      349 

tution,  the  rule  of  uniformity  protects  every  class  of  citizens  by 
making  the  protection  of  each  the  interest  of  all. 

The  gentleman  from  Massachusetts  was  very  energetic  in  his 
plea  for  equality  of  taxation,  and  quoted  a  passage  from  the  Chi- 
cago platform  on  that  subject,  with  the  manifest  purpose  of  mak- 
ing it  apply  to  such  a  measure  as  he  proposes.  I  suggest  to  the 
gentleman  that  he  will  find  a  much  better  text  for  his  doctrines 
in  the  Democratic  platform  than  he  finds  in  ours.  The  language 
of  Tammany  Hall  on  this  subject  is  explicit,  and  expresses  in 
very  vigorous  terms  the  gentleman's  ideas  of  taxation.  Their 
fourth  article  is  as  follows :  "  Equal  taxation  of  every  species 
of  property  according  to  its  real  value,  including  government 
bonds  and  other  public  securities."  This  declaration  must  meet 
the  hearty  approval  of  the  gentleman  from  Massachusetts.  Ac- 
cording to  this  doctrine,  the  Democratic  party  are  in  favor  of 
taxing  equally  all  property,  real  and  personal.  Farms  and 
bonds,  wagons  and  billiard-tables,  wheat  and  whiskey,  bread  and 
tobacco,  all  are  to  be  subject  to  equal  taxation,  according  to 
their  real  value  !  Farms  to  bear  no  less  rate  than  whiskey,  po- 
tatoes no  less  than  beer,  corn  no  less  than  brandy,  wheat  no  less 
than  gin !  All  are  to  be  taken  together  according  to  this  new 
Democratic  doctrine,  and  subjected  to  a  tax  not  levied  as  now, 
by  uniform  rule,  on  the  annual  value  of  the  income  arising  from 
it,  but  as  a  direct  tax  on  the  actual  value  of  the  articles  them- 
selves. This  new  definition  of  the  meaning  of  equality  ought  to 
be  entirely  pleasing  to  the  distinguished  gentleman  from  Massa- 
chusetts. 

The  law  declares  the  bonds  exempt  from  taxation  by  all  State 
and  municipal  authorities.  Now,  if  this  Democratic  resolution 
means  that  the  bonds  are  to  be  subjected  to  a  direct  property 
tax,  it  must  mean  State  taxation ;  and  that  not  only  is  forbidden 
in  the  law  that  created  the  bonds,  but,  according  to  repeated  de- 
cisions of  the  Supreme  Court,  is  forbidden  by  the  Constitution 
of  the  United  States.  If  the  resolution  means  that  Congress 
ought  to  tax  all  farm  and  agricultural  implements,  all  property 
real  and  personal,  according  to  its  real  value,  the  absurdity  is 
so  apparent  as  to  need  no  comment.  The  established  rule  that 
the  States  levy  direct  taxes,  and  Congress  indirect,  would  be 
utterly  broken  down. 

Now,  Mr.  Chairman,  allow  me  to  suggest  that  there  are  two 
ways  of  managing  taxation  and  the  public  debt.    One  is  to  strike 


35v>       TAXATION  OF  UNITED  STATES  BONDS. 

vliicctly  at  the  principal  or  interest  of  the  bonds,  and  greatly 
iwliKo  their  value  for  the  sake  of  adding  a  little  to  the  revenue. 
I  hat  is  the  method  of  the  gentleman  from  Massachusetts  and 
hiji  associates.  For  the  sake  of  withholding  $13,000,000  from 
the  public  creditors,  they  would  depreciate  the  value  of  every 
I'niteU  States  bond  in  existence.  The  bonds  have  already 
fallen  an  average  of  one  per  cent  since  this  resolution  passed 
the  House. 

Mh,  l*iKK.    Are  they  not  to-day  as  high  as  they  were  before? 

No,  sir;  I  have  the  quotation  in  to-day*s  paper,  and  they  are 
more  than  one  cent  lower  than  they  were  before  that  resolution 
|>as4e(l. 

Mr.  Pike.     In  London? 

No,  sir;  here.  If  the  country  fully  believed  that  this  ruinous 
policy  would  become  the  law,  the  depreciation  would  be  very 
jjreat.  For  every  cent  of  depreciation,  $21,000,000  is  lost  by 
our  creditors,  but  not  gained  by  us.  The  creditors  lose  the 
money,  and  the  nation  loses  credit.  And  under  the  system  of 
these  gentlemen,  what  would  be  our  condition  when  we  find  it 
necessary  to  negotiate  a  loan  ?  That  necessity  is  now  almost 
upon  us,  for  we  have  a  bill  pending  to  fund  $1,800,000,000  of 
our  debt.  Nobody  expects  that  we  can  pay  the  debt  as  fast  as 
it  matures,  but  we  shall  be  compelled  to  go  into  the  market  and 
negotiate  new  loans.  Let  this  system  of  taxation  be  pursued; 
let  another  Congress  put  the  tax  at  twenty  per  cent,  another  at 
forty  per  cent,  and  another  at  fifty  per  cent,  or  one  hundred  per 
cent;  let  the  principle  be  once  adopted,  —  the  rate  is  only  a 
question  of  discretion,  —  and  where  will  you  be  able  to  nego- 
tiate a  loan  except  at  the  most  ruinous  sacrifice?  Let  such 
legislation  prevail  as  the  gentleman  urges,  and  can  we  look  any 
man  in  the  face  and  ask  him  to  loan  us  money?  If  we  do  not 
keep  faith  to-day,  how  can  we  expect  to  be  trusted  hereafter? 

I  have  said  there  are  two  methods  of  managing  debt  and  tax- 
ation. One  I  have  just  been  considering.  The  other  is  advo- 
cated, not  by  the  gentleman  from  Massachusetts,  nor  in  the 
Democratic  platform,  but  in  the  platform  adopted  at  Chicago, 
in  which  it  is  declared  that  — 

"  We  denounce  all  forms  of  repudiation  as  a  national  crime  ;  and  the 
national  honor  requires  the  payment  of  the  public  indebtedness,  in  the 
uttermost  good  faith,  to  all  creditors  at  home  and  abroad,  not  only  ac- 


TAXATION  OF  UNITED  STATES  BONDS.       35 ' 

cording  to  the  letter,  but  the  spirit,  of  the  laws  under  which  it  was  con- 
tracted. 

"  It  is  due  to  the  labor  of  the  nation  that  taxation  should  be  equal- 
ized, and  reduced  as  rapidly  as  the  national  faith  will  permit. 

"  The  national  debt,  contracted  as  it  has  been  for  the  preservation  of 
the  Union  for  all  time  to  come,  should  be  extended  over  a  fair  period 
for  redemption ;  and  it  is  the  duty  of  Congress  to  reduce  the  rate  of 
interest  thereon  whenever  it  can  be  honestly  done. 

"  That  the  best  policy  to  diminish  our  burden  of  debt  is  to  so  improve 
our  credit  that  capitalists  will  seek  to  loan  us  money  at  lower  rates  of 
interest  than  we  now  pay,  and  must  continue  to  pay  so  long  as  repudia- 
tion, partial  or  total,  open  or  covert,  is  threatened  or  suspected." 

I  quote  these  declarations  with  feelings  of  pride  and  satisfac- 
tion. I  am  proud  of  that  great  party  which,  having  saved  the  life 
of  the  nation  by  its  valor,  now  declares  its  unalterable  purpose 
to  save,  by  its  truth  and  devotion,  what  is  still  more  precious, 
the  faith  and  honor  of  the  nation.  There  was  a  declaration 
made  by  an  old  English  gentleman  in  the  days  of  Charles  II. 
which  does  honor  to  human  nature.  He  said  he  was  willing 
at  any  time  to  give  his  life  for  the  good  of  his  country ;  but  he 
would  not  do  a  mean  thing  to  save  his  country  from  ruin.  So, 
sir,  ought  a  citizen  to  feel  in  regard  to  our  financial  affairs.  The 
people  of  the  United  States  can  afford  to  make  any  sacrifice  for 
their  country,  and  the  history  of  the  last  war  has  proved  their 
willingness;  but  the  humblest  citizen  cannot  aff*ord  to  do  a 
mean  or  dishonorable  thing  to  save  even  this  glorious  republic. 
For  my  own  part,  I  will  consent  to  no  act  of  dishonor.  And  I 
look  upon  this  proposition  —  though  I  cannot  think  the  gcn- 
tieman  meant  it  to  be  so  —  as  having  in  itself  the  very  essence 
of  dishonor.  I  shall,  therefore,  to  the  utmost  of  my  ability  re- 
sist it. 

Suppose  that  the  credit  of  the  United  States  were  as  good  as 
the  credit  of  Massachusetts.  Only  a  few  months  ago  that  State 
negotiated  a  loan  in  London  on  terms  so  favorable  as  to  put  to 
shame  our  attempts  at  funding  our  debt.  During  the  whole 
war,  her  credit  has  been  far  better  than  ours.  And  how  stand 
her  old  five  per  cent  bonds  to-day?  I  hold  in  my  hand  the 
London  Economist  of  a  month  ago,  and  I  find  the  Massachu- 
setts five  per  cent  bonds  quoted  at  89  and  90,  while  the  ten- 
forty  gold-bearing  five  per  cent  United  States  bonds  are  68^  ;  a 
difference  of  twenty-one  cents  on  the  dollar.    And  why  this  great 


'- 


352       TAXATION  OF  UNITED  STATES  BONDS. 

difference?  Massachusetts  has  not  only  kept  faith  through  all 
the  trials  of  the  war,  but  she  has  not  sought  technical  grounds 
on  which  to  escape  from  her  obligations.  She  might  have 
lightened  the  burden  of  her  debt,  as  many  other  States  did, 
by  paying  her  interest  in  currency  instead  of  in  coin,  under 
the  protection  of  the  legal-tender  act.  But  she  paid  every  debt 
in  accordance  with  the  letter  and  spirit  of  the  contract.  Her 
bonds  exhibit  the  result.  If  the  credit  of  the  United  States 
were  as  good  as  that  of  Massachusetts,  we  could  fund  our  whole 
debt  at  $400,ooo,ocx)  less  cost  to  the  nation  than  we  can  fund  it 
on  our  own  credit.  This  example  fully  illustrates  the  two  lines 
of  financial  policy. 

Mr.  Speaker,  I  desire  to  say,  in  conclusion,  that,  in  my  opin- 
ion, all  these  efforts  to  pursue  a  doubtful  and  unusual,  if  not  dis- 
honorable policy,  in  reference  to  our  public  debt,  spring  from  a 
lack  of  faith  in  the  intelligence  and  conscience  of  the  American 
people.  Hardly  an  hour  passes  when  we  do  not  hear  it  whis- 
pered that  some  such  policy  as  this  must  be  adopted,  or  the 
people  will  by  and  by  repudiate  the  debt.  For  my  own  part,  I 
do  not  share  that  distrust.  The  people  of  this  country  have 
shown,  by  the  highest  proofs  which  human  nature  can  give,  that 
wherever  the  path  of  honor  and  duty  may  lead,  however  steep 
and  rugged  it  may  be,  they  are  ready  to  walk  in  it.  They  feel 
the  burden  of  the  public  debt,  but  they  remember  that  it  is  the 
price  of  blood,  —  the  precious  blood  of  half  a  million  brave  men, 
who  died  to  save  to  us  all  that  makes  life  desirable  or  property 
secure.  I  believe  they  will,  after  a  full  hearing,  discard  all 
methods  of  paying  their  debts  by  sleight  of  hand,  or  by  any 
scheme  which  crooked  wisdom  may  devise.  If  public  morality 
did  not  protest  against  any  such  plan,  enlightened  public  selfish- 
ness would  refuse  its  sanction.  Let  us  be  true  to  our  trust  a 
few  years  longer,  and  the  next  generation  will  be  here  with  its 
seventy-five  millions  of  population,  and  its  sixty  billions  of 
wealth.  To  them  the  debt  that  then  remains  will  be  a  light 
burden.  They  will  pay  the  last  bond  according  to  the  letter 
and  spirit  of  the  contract,  with  the  same  sense  of  grateful  duty 
with  which  they  will  pay  the  pensions  of  the  few  surviving  sol- 
diers of  the  great  war  for  the  Union, 


TAXATION  OF  UNITED  STATES  BONDS.       353 

At  different  times  Mr.  Garfield  gave  full  expression  to  his  views  touch- 
ing all  forms  of  the  bond-taxing  proposition.  He  opposed  taxing  bonds 
already  issued,  whether  in  American  or  in  foreign  hands,  as  inexpedient 
and  contrary  to  the  contract.  He  insisted  that  bonds  should  not  be 
exemptec\  from  the  operation  of  the  incdme  tax.  He  held  that  to  issue 
new  bonds  subject  to  taxation  would  be  useless,  since  what  was  received 
from  the  bondholder  in  taxes  would  be  paid  back  to  him  in  interest.  He 
held  that  the  States  could  not  tax  the  bonds  without  the  consent  of  the 
United  States,  and  this  consent  the  United  States,  even  if  disposed,  couP 
not  legally  give.  The  legal  argument  on  this  point  he  stated  thus,  in  the 
House  of  Representatives,  July  17,  1868. 

Mr.  Speaker,  —  I  desire  to  say  a  word  on  the  pending 
amendment,  for  the  purpose  of  putting  on  record  the  opinions 
of  one  of  the  very  ablest  lawyers  who  ever  lived  in  this  coun- 
try on  the  question  of  the  right  of  Congress  to  authorize  a  State 
to  tax  the  bonds  of  the  United  States.  I  had  occasion,  two 
years  ago,  in  a  speech  on  this  subject,  to  quote  this  passage 
from  Mr.  Webster.  But  before  quoting  it,  I  wish  to  state  the 
authorities  upon  this  subject. 

I  take  it  that  no  lawyer  in  this  House  who  has  examined  the 
authorities  will  assert  that  any  State  can,  of  its  own  right,  tax 
the  bonds  of  the  United  States.  But  the  question  has  been 
raised  whether  Congress  may  not  confer  upon  a  State  the  right 
to  tax  them.  I  particularly  desire  to  call  attention  on  that  ques- 
tion to  the  authorities  to  which  I  refer. 

First,  let  me  state  in  brief  the  decisions  of  the  Supreme  Court 
to  the  effect  that  a  State  has  not  the  right  to  tax  the  bonds  of 
the  United  States.  It  was  decided  by  Chief  Justice  Marshall, 
in  18 19,  in  the  case  of  McCulloch  v.  The  State  of  Maryland 
et  aiy  It  was  decided  again  by  that  same  distinguished  jurist 
in  the  case  of  Weston  et  al,  v.  The  City  Council  of  Charleston.* 
It  was  decided  in  the  case  of  Osborn  et  al,  v.  The  Bank  of  the 
United  States,^  in  1824,  when  Henry  Clay,  as  counsel,  argued 
other  features  of  the  cause  before  the  court,  but  declined  to  offer 
any  argument  on  the  question  of  the  power  of  the  State  to  tax 
the  bank,  and  alleged  as  a  reason  that  the  point  was  so  well  set- 
tled that  argument  was  unnecessary.  It  was  decided  again  in 
1862,  in  the  case  of  The  Bank  of  Commerce  v.  New  York  City;  * 
and  still  later,  in  the  case  of  Van  Allen  v.  The  Assessors.* 

»  4  Whcaton,  316.  «  2  Peters,  449.  •  9  Wheaton,  738. 

*  3  Black,  620.  *  3  Wallace,  573. 

VOL.  L  23 


354       TAXATION  OF  UNITED  STATES  BONDS. 

Now  in  regard  to  the  power  of  Congress  to  authorize  a 
State  to  tax  the  bonds  of  the  United  States,  I  ask  the  Clerk  to 
read  a  passage  from  a  speech  of  Daniel  Webster  on  the  very 
question  under  discussion.  The  speech  was  delivered  in  the 
Senate  of  the  United  States,  May  28,  1832.  The  question  was 
on  an  amendment  oJfTered  by  Mr.  Moore,  of  Alabama,  propos- 
ing, first,  that  the  Bank  of  the  United  States  should  not  estab- 
lish or  continue  any  office  of  discount,  or  deposit,  or  branch 
bank,  in  any  State,  without  the  consent  and  approbation  of  the 
State;  second,  that  all  such  offices  and  branches  should  be 
subject  to  taxation  according  to  the  amount  of  their  loans  and 
issues,  in  like  manner  as  other  banks  or  other  property  should 
be  liable  to  taxation. 

''  Now,  sir,  I  doubt  exceedingly  our  power  to  adopt  this  amendment, 
and  I  pray  the  deliberate  consideration  of  the  Senate  in  regard  to  this 
point 

''  In  the  first  place,  let  me  ask,  What  is  the  constitutional  ground  on 
which  Congress  created  this  corporation,  and  on  which  we  now  propose 
to  continue  it?  There  is  no  express  authority  to  create  a  bank,  or  any 
other  corporation,  given  to  us  by  the  Constitution.  The  power  is  derived 
by  implication.  It  has  been  exercised,  and  can  be  exercised,  only  on  the 
ground  of  a  just  necessity.  It  is  to  be  maintained,  if  at  all,  on  the  alle- 
gation that  the  establishment  of  a  national  bank  is  a  just  and  necessary 
means  for  carrying  on  the  government,  and  executing  the  powers  con- 
ferred on  Congress  by  the  Constitution.  On  this  ground  Congress  has 
established  this  bank,  and  on  this  it  is  now  proposed  to  be  continued. 
And  it  has  already  been  judicially  decided  that,  Congress  having  estab- 
lished a  bank  for  these  purposes,  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States 
prohibits  the  States  from  taxing  it.  Observe,  sir,  it  is  the  Constitution, 
not  the  law^  which  lays  this  prohibition  on  the  States.  The  charter  of 
the  Bank  does  not  declare  that  the  State  shall  not  tax  it.  It  says  not 
one  word  on  that  subject.  The  restraint  is  imposed,  not  by  Congress, 
but  by  a  higher  authority,  the  Constitution. 

"  Now,  sir,  I  ask  how  we  can  relieve  the  States  from  this  constitutional 
prohibition.  It  is  true  that  this  prohibition  is  not  imposed  in  express 
terms,  but  it  results  from  the  general  provisions  of  the  Constitution,  and 
has  been  judicially  decided  to  exist  in  full  force.  This  is  a  protection, 
then,  which  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States,  by  its  own  force,  holds 
over  this  institution,  which  Congress  has  deemed  necessary  to  be  created 
in  order  to  carry  on  the  government,  so  soon  as  Congress,  exercising  its 
own  judgment,  has  chosen  to  create  it.  Can  we  throw  off  from  this  gov- 
emment  this  constitutional  protection?    I  think  it  clear  we  cannot    We 


TAXATION  OF  UNITED  STATES  BONDS.       355 

cannot  repeal  the  Constitution.  We  cannot  say  that  every  power,  every 
branchy  every  institution,  and  every  law  of  this  government,  shall  not  have 
all  the  force,  all  the  sanction,  and  all  the  protection,  which  the  Constitu- 
tion gives  it"  * 

Such  was  the  opinion  of  the  great  "  Defender  of  the  Consti- 
tution." He  believed  that  the  power  of  a  State  to  tax  the  se- 
curities of  the  United  States  is  prohibited  by  a  higher  authority 
than  a  statute  of  Congress ;  that  it  is  prohibited  by  the  Con- 
stitution itself.  I  have  made  the  quotation  to  show  that  Mr. 
Webster  did  not  believe  that  Congress  could  constitutionally 
delegate  to  the  States  the  authority  to  tax  the  securities  of  the 
United  States. 

1  Works  of  Daniel  Webster,  Vol.  III.  pp.  409,  41a 


MR.  STEVENS  AND  THE  FIVE-TWENTY 

BONDS. 

PERSONAL   EXPLANATION   MADE    IN   THE    HOUSE   OF 
REPRESENTATIVES,  July  zy,  1868. 


MR.  SPEAKER,  —  I  will  first  ask  the  Clerk  to  read  some 
remarks  made  by  the  gentleman  from  Pennsylvania 
on  Friday,  the  17th  instant,  so  that  the  statements  to  which  I 
desire  to  reply  may  be  recalled  to  the  recollection  of  members. 
He  was  speaking  of  the  payment  of  the  five-twenty  bonds. 

The  Clerk  read  as  follows :  — 

"  Mr.  Stevens  of  Pennsylvania.  I  want  to  say  that  if  this  loan  was  to 
be  paid  according  to  the  intimation  of  the  gentleman  from  Illinois,* — if  I 
knew  that  any  party  in  the  country  would  go  for  paying  in  coin  that 
which  is  payable  in  money,  thus  enhancing  it  one  half,  —  if  I  knew  there 
was  such  a  platform  and  such  a  determination  this  day  on  the  part  of  any 
party,  I  would  vote  for  the  other  side,  Frank  Blair  and  all.  I  would  vote 
for  no  such  swindle  upon  the  taxpayers  of  this  country ;  I  would  vote 
for  no  such  speculation  in  favor  of  the  large  bondholders,  the  million- 
naires,  who  took  advantage  of  our  folly  in  granting  them  coin  payment  of 
interest.  And  I  declare  —  well,  it  is  hard  to  say  it  —  but  if  even  Frank 
Blair  stood  upon  the  platform  of  paying  the  bonds  according  to  the  con- 
tract, and  the  Republican  candidates  stood  upon  the  platform  of  paying 
bloated  speculators  twice  the  amount  which  we  agreed  to  pay  them,  then 
I  would  vote  for  Frank  Blair,  even  if  a  worse  man  than  Seymoiur  headed 
the  ticket.    That  is  all  I  want  to  say."  * 

A  few  days  afterward  I  expressed  my  surprise  at  these  state- 
ments of  the  gentleman  from  Pennsylvania,  and  referred  to  the 
fact  that,  in  the  debate  of  1862,  on  the  passage  of  the  bill  author- 
izing the  five-twenty  bonds,  the  gentleman  distinctly  declared 
that  these  bonds  were  payable  in  gold,  and  that  such  was  the 

1  Mr.  Ross.  s  Congressional  Globe,  July  17,  186S,  p.  4178. 


THE  FIVE^TWENTY  BONDS,  357 

unanimous  opinion  and  intention  of  Congress   at  that  time. 
Yesterday  the  gentleman  read  from  manuscript  the  following :  — 

"  Mr.  Stevens  of  Pennsylvania,  rising  to  a  personal  explanation,  said : 
I  desire  to  say  a  few  words  relating  to  what  I  observe  reported  in  the 
Globe  of  the  remarks  of  General  Garfield  and  others  with  regard  to  what 
I  said  in  debate  on  the  passage  of  the  five-twenty  bill.  I  find  that  it  is 
all  taken  firom  the  report  of  Secretary  McCuUoch,  which  I  had  never  read. 
I  am  therefore  firee  to  presume  that  what  those  gentlemen  quoted,  rather 
than  said,  is  a  total  perversion  of  the  truth.  Had  it  not  been  introduced 
from  so  respectable  a  quarter  in  this  House,  it  would  not  be  too  harsh,  as 
there  presented,  to  call  it  an  absolute  falsehood.  I  do  not  know  that  I 
should  have  taken  any  notice  of  what  the  various  papers  are  repeating,  some 
of  them  half  Rebel,  some  half  Secession,  and  more  of  them,  I  suppose, 
in  the  pay  of  the  bondholders.  I  shall  not  now  undertake  to  explain 
the  whole  of  this  matter,  as  I  am  too  feeble ;  but  I  shall  take  occasion 
hereafter  to  expose  the  villany  of  those  who  charge  me  with  having  said, 
on  the  passage  of  the  five-twenty  bill,  that  its  bonds  were  payable  in  coin. 
The  whole  debate  from  which  they  quote,  and  all  my  remarks  which  they 
cited,  were  made  upon  an  entirely  different  bill,  as  might  be  seen  by  ob- 
serving that  I  speak  only  of  the  payment  of  gold  after  twenty  years,  when 
the  bill  I  was  speaking  of,  as  well  as  all  other  liabilities,  were  payable  in 
coin,  as  no  one  doubted  the  resumption  of  specie  payments.  My  speech 
was  made  upon  the  introduction  of  the  legal-tender  bill,  on  which  the 
interest  for  twenty  years  was  to  be  paid  in  currency.  No  question  of 
paying  the  interest  in  gold  arose  till  some  time  after,  when  the  bill  had 
been  passed  by  the  House,  sent  to  the  Senate,  returned,  and  went  to  a 
committee  of  conference,  when,  for  the  first  time,  the  gold-bearing  ques- 
tion was  introduced ;  and  yet  all  that  these  wise  and  truthful  gentlemen 
have  quoted  from  me  took  place  in  debate  some  weeks  before  the  gold 
question,  either  principal  or  interest,  had  arisen  in  the  House.  I  only 
now  wish  to  caution  the  public  against  putting  faith  in  the  fabrications 
of  demagogues  and  usurers,  and  they  will  find  that  every  word  which  I 
have  asserted  with  regard  to  myself  is  true  to  the  letter.*'  ^ 

Now,  Mr.  Speaker,  I  can  permit  no  such  denial  of  the  truth 
of  my  statement,  and  particularly  no  such  personal  attack,  to  go 
unchallenged.     I  therefore  appeal  to  the  records. 

On  the  22d  of  January,  1862,  Hon  E.  G.  Spaulding,  of 
New  York,  from  the  Committee  of  Ways  and  Means,  reported 
House  Bill  No.  240, —  a  bill  to  authorize  the  issue  of  United 
States  notes,  and  for  the  redemption  or  funding  thereof,  and 
for  funding  the  floating  debt  of  the  United  States.     It  con- 

^  Congressional  Globe,  July  22,  1868,  p.  4335- 


3S8  THE  FIVE-TWENTY  BONDS. 

sisted  of  three  sections.  The  first  authorized  the  issue  of 
$100,000,000  legal-tender  notes;  the  second  authorized  the  issue 
of  $500,000,000  six  per  cent  twenty-year  bonds,  with  which 
to  fund  the  legal-tender  notes,  and  other  floating  debt  of  the 
United  Statesf  j^  the  third  was  mainly  administrative  (see  copy  of 
original  biU,  G\k^,  Vol.  XLVI.  p.  522).  This  bill,  with  but  few 
important  change^,'  became  the  act  of  February  25,  1862.  On 
t%  day  of  its  introduction  it  was  printed,  and  made  the  spe- 
cial order  for  January  28,  when  a  searching  debate  on  its  pro- 
visions began,  and  continued  with  an  interruption  of  but  one 
legislative  day  to  and  including  the  6th  of  February. 

The  gentleman  from  Pennsylvania  took  no  active  part  in  the 
debate  until  the  day  of  its  passage,  when,  after  general  debate 
on  the  bill  in  Committee  of  the  Whole  was  closed  by  order 
of  the  House,  Hon.  E.  G.  Spaulding  yielded  to  Mr.  Stevens 
most  of  the  hour  to  which  he  was  entitled,  and  then  the  gen- 
tleman made  a  vigorous  and  incisive  speech,  as  he  always  did, 
attacking  the  several  substitutes  that  had  been  ojffered,  and 
defending  the  bill  of  the  Committee  of  Ways  and  Means.  One 
substitute  had  been  oJffered  by  Mr.  Vallandigham,  of  Ohio; 
another,  by  Mr.  Roscoe  Conkling,  of  New  York ;  another,  by 
Mr.  Morrill,  of  Vermont ;  and  another,  by  Mr.  Horton,  of  Ohio, 
which  embraced  the  leading  features  of  all  the  others,  and  was 
finally  selected  as  the  one  to  be  voted  on  in  opposition  to  the 
bill  of  the  committee.  This  substitute  did  not  make  United 
States  notes  a  legal  tender  for  private  debts,  and  this  was  the 
chief  issue  between  the  advocates  and  opponents  of  the  bill  of 
the  committee. 

A  large  part  of  the  speech  of  the  gentleman  from  Pennsyl- 
vania was  devoted  to  the  defence  of  the  legal-tender  clause  of 
the  bill.  He  held  that  without  the  legal-tender  provision  the 
notes  would  depreciate ;  with  it,  they  would  remain  at  par.  He 
quoted  a  long  passage  from  the  English  writer,  McCulloch,  to 
show  that  paper  money  which  is  a  legal  tender  will  always 
be  at  par  as  long  as  the  amount  issued  is  not  in  excess  of  the 
wants  of  the  country.  At  that  point  a  question  was  asked  him 
by  Mr.  Thomas,  of  Massachusetts.     I  quote  the  following :  — 

''  Mr.  Thomas.  I  desire  to  ask  the  gentleman  a  question  in  connection 
with  that  passage.  McCulloch  laid  down  the  doctrine,  that  the  paper  is 
limited  to  the  amount  necessary  for  currency.  Let  me  ask  the  gentle- 
man from  Pennsylvania  whether  he  now  expects,  in  managing  these 


it 
ii 


THE  FIVE-TWENTY  BONDS.  359 

financial  matters,  to  limit  the  amount  of  these  notes  to  $150,000,000. 
Is  that  his  expectation  ? 

''  Mr.  Stephens.  It  is.  I  expect  that  is  the  maximum  amount  to  be 
issued. 

Mr.  Thomas.    You  do  not  expect  to  call  for  any  more  ? 

Mr.  Stevens.    No,  sir ;  I  do  not"  ^ 

The  gentleman  then  proceeded  to  show  that  these  legal-tender 
notes  would  soon  be  used  to  buy  the  bonds  authorized  in  the 
second  section,  and  that  the  bonds  would  be  a  good  investment 
He  said :  — 

"  This  money  would  soon  lodge  in  large  quantities  with  the  capitalists 
and  banks,  who  must  take  them  [the  notes].  But  the  instinct  of  gain  — 
perhaps  I  may  call  it  avarice — would  not  allow  them  to  keep  it  long  un- 
productive. A  dollar  in  a  miser's  safe  unproductive  is  a  sore  disturbance. 
Where  could  they  invest  it?  In  United  States  loans,  at  six  per  cent, 
redeemable  in  gold  in  twenty  years,  —  the  best  and  most  valuable  per- 
manent investment  that  could  be  desired.  The  government  would  thus 
again  possess  such  notes  in  exchange  for  bonds,  and  again  reissue  them. 
I  have  no  doubt  that  thus  the  $500,000,000  of  bonds  authorized  would 
be  absorbed  in  less  time  than  would  be  needed  by  government,  and  thus 
$150,000,000  would  do  the  work  of  $500,000,000  of  bonds. 

"  When  further  loans  were  wanted,  you  need  only  authorize  the  sale 
of  more  bonds.  The  same  $150,000,000  of  notes  would  be  ready  to 
take  them."  ^ 

A  little  further  on  he  said :  — 

"  Gentiemen  are  clamorous  in  favor  of  those  who  have  debts  due 
them,  lest  the  debtor  should  the  more  easily  pay  his  debt.  I  do  not 
much  sympathize  with  such  importunate  money-lenders.  But  widows 
and  orphans  are  interested,  and  in  tears  lest  their  estates  should  be 
badly  invested.  I  pity  no  one  who  lias  his  money  invested  in  United 
States  bonds,  payable  in  gold  in  twenty  years,  with  interest  semi- 
annually." 

He  then  proceeded  to  review  the  several  substitutes,  stating 
first  the  plan  of  the  committee.  I  quote  from  the  same 
page :  — 

"  Let  me  restate  the  various  projects.  Ours  proposes  United  States 
notes,  secured  at  the  end  of  twenty  years  to  be  paid  in  coin,  and  the 
interest  raised  by  taxation  semiannually ;  such  notes  to  be  money,  and 
of  uniform  value  throughout  the  Union.     No  better  investment,  in  my 

1  Congressional  Globe,  February  6,  1862.  p.  688.  ^  Ibid.,  p.  688. 


36o  THE  FIVE^TWENTY  BONDS. 

judgment,  can  be  had.    No  better  currency  can  be  invented 

The  proposition  of  the  gentleman  from  New  York  ^  authorizes  the  issu- 
ing of  seven  per  cent  bonds,  payable  in  thirty-one  years,  to  be  sold 
($250,000,000  of  it)  or  exchanged  for  the  currency  of  the  banks  of 
Boston,  New  York,  and  Philadelphia. 

"  Sir,  this  proposition  seems  to  me  to  lack  every  element  of  wise  legis- 
kition.  Make  a  loan  payable  in  irredeemable  currency,  and  pay  that  in 
its  depreciated  condition  to  our  contractors,  soldiers,  and  creditors  gen- 
erally I  The  banks  would  issue  unlimited  amounts  of  what  would  become 
trash,  and  buy  good  hard-money  bonds  of  the  nation.  Was  there  ever 
such  a  temptation  to  swindle  ?  " 

On  the  following  page,  and  near  the  end  of  his  speech,  he 
says :  — 

''  Here,  then,  in  a  few  words,  lies  your  choice.  Throw  bonds  at  six 
or  seven  per  cent  on  the  market  between  this  and  December,  enough  to 
raise  at  least  $600,000,000,  ....  or  issue  United  States  notes,  not  re- 
deemable in  coin,  but  fundable  in  specie-paying  bonds  at  twenty  years." 

In  a  few  moments  after  the  conclusion  of  this  speech  the 
House  voted  to  reject  the  substitute  of  Mr.  Horton,  and  adopted 
the  bill  advocated  by  Mr.  Stevens.  It  was  sent  to  the  Senate, 
and  but  few  important  amendments  were  made,  the  chief  of 
which  was  that  the  legal-tender  clause  should  not  apply  to 
duties  on  imports,  but  that  they  should  be  paid  in  coin,  and  the 
coin  should  be  applied  to  payment  of  the  interest  on  the  bonds, 
and  to  the  reduction  of  the  principal  of  the  debt.  No  change 
was  made  in  the  bill  which  in  any  manner  affected  the  question 
of  the  payment  of  the  principal  of  the  bonds.  On  the  14th  of 
February  the  bill  came  back  to  the  House,  and  was  made  a 
special  order  for  February  19,  when  it  was  again  debated,  some 
of  the  amendments  adopted,  and  some  rejected ;  and  after  sub- 
mitting the  differences  between  the  two  houses  to  a  conference 
committee  it  was  passed,  February  25,  and  on  the  following  day 
became  a  law  by  receiving  the  approval  of  the  President. 

I  have  carefully  gone  over  all  the  proceedings,  as  recorded 
in  the  Globe  and  in  the  Journal  of  the  House,  and  I  have  not 
found  an  intimation  made,  directly  or  indirectly,  by  any  member, 
that  it  was  ever  dreamed  the  principal  of  these  bonds  could  be 
paid  in  anything  but  gold.  On  the  contrary,  all  who  did  refer 
to  the  subject  spoke  in  the  most  positive  terms  that,  as  a  matter 
of  course,  they  were  payable  in  gold. 

^  Mr.  Conkling. 


THE  FIVE-TWENTY  BONDS.  361 

Mr.  Spaulding,  of  New  York,  said :  "  They  intend  to  foot  all 
the  bills,  and  ultimately  pay  the  whole  amount,  principal  and 
interest,  in  gold  and  silver.''  ^ 

Mr.  Pomeroy,  who  is  now  a  member  of  the  House,  said: 
"  The  credit  of  the  government  is  alike  bound  for  the  payment 
of  both  classes  of  indebtedness  ultimately  in  gold.  Each  de- 
rives its  entire  value  from  that."  ' 

Mr.  Pike,  of  Maine,  now  a  member  of  the  House,  said :  "  With 
all  due  deference  to  the  gentlemen  who  differ  with  me  on  this 
subject,  it  does  seem  to  me  that  this  matter  of  the  payment  of 
the  interest  in  coin  is  a  controversy  about  goats'  wool.  The 
interest  will  be  paid  in  coin  in  any  event."  * 

Now,  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have  proved  from  the  record  the  cor- 
rectness of  every  declaration  I  made  in  reference  to  the  opinion 
of  Congress  at  the  time  of  the  passage  of  the  five-twenty  bill, 
and  particularly  the  opinion  of  the  gentleman  from  Pennsylvania. 
This  might  seem  sufHcient,  but  I  wish  to  carry  the  investigation 
a  step  further. 

About  one  year  later,  when  the  House  was  debating  the  bill 
for  issuing  what  are  now  known  as  ten-forty  bonds,  the  gentle- 
man from  Pennsylvania,  who  had  offered  an  amendment  to  make 
the  interest  payable  in  paper,  held  the  following  colloquy  with 
Mr.  Horton,  of  Ohio :  — 

"  Mr.  Stevens.  It  would  be  fair,  I  suppose,  to  state  that  my  amend- 
ment proposes  to  pay  for  these  bonds  at  the  end  of  ten  years  in  coin, 
but  to  pay  the  interest  in  currency,  while  the  bill  of  the  Committee  of 
Ways  and  Means  proposes  to  redeem  the  bonds  in  currency. 

"  Mr.  Horton.  I  cannot  state  what  the  gentleman  asks  me  to  state, 
because,  according  to  my  view,  it  is  not  correct.  The  bill  of  the  Com- 
mittee of  Ways  and  Means  does  not  contemplate  paying  in  paper. 

"  Mr.  Stevens.    Will  the  gentleman  allow  me  to  ask  him  a  question? 

"  Mr.  Horton.     Certainly. 

"  Mr.  Stevens.  Are  not  the  bonds  payable  *  in  lawful  money,'  what- 
ever that  is  ? 

"  Mr.  Horton.     No,  sir. 

"  Mr.  Stevens.  Then  the  Committee  of  Ways  and  Means  and  I  do 
not  agree  as  to  its  meaning. 

"  Mr.  Horton.  I  speak  only  for  myself,  and  I  appeal  to  the  bill. 
The  policy  of  the  bill  is  to  pay  the  interest  in  coin,  and  to  collect  the 
imposts  in  coin,  and  to  redeem  the  bonds  in  twenty  years  in  coin."  * 

1  Congressional  Globe,  Feb.  19,  1862,  p.  88a.  «  Ibid.,  p.  885. 

«  Ibid,  p.  887.  «  Ibid,  Jan.  19,  1863,  p.  388. 


362  THE  FIVE^TWENTY  BONDS. 

So  far  as  I  can  learn,  this  was  the  first  word  ever  spoken  in 
Congress  suggesting  the  possibility  of  paying  these  bonds  in 
anything  but  coin. 

Now,  notice  the  effect  of  this  suggestion.  On  the  following 
day,  January  20,  while  the  same  bill  was  pending,  Mr.  Thomas, 
of  Massachusetts,  moved  to  amend  by  inserting  the  words  "  in 
coin  "  in  the  first  section.  Mr.  Morrill,  of  Vermont,  moved  to 
add  the  words  "  and  buUion."  Then  the  following  discussion 
took  place :  — 

"  Mr.  Horton.  I  am  opposed  to  the  amendment  of  the  gentleman 
from  Vermont,  which  is  to  include  bullion  with  gold  in  the  payment  of 
these  bonds ;  and  am  in  favor  of  the  amendment  of  the  gentleman  from 
Massachusetts,  to  make  them  payable  in  gold.  I  wish  to  say  here  that 
the  Committee  of  Ways  and  Means,  in  framing  this  bill,  never  dreamed 
that  these  twenty-year  bonds  were  to  be  payable  in  anything  other  than 
gold,  until  the  gentleman  from  Pennsylvania  told  it  yesterday  upon  the 
floor  of  the  House. 

"  Mr.  Stevens.  I  do  not  like  to  refer  to  what  occurred  in  committee, 
but  I  ask  the  gentieman  from  Vermont  whether  he  did  not  state  that  he 
expected  they  would  be  paid  in  legal  money  ? 

''  Mr.  Horton.  I  say  to  the  gendeman  and  to  this  committee  that  I 
never  heard  an  expression  by  any  member  of  the  Committee  of  Ways 
and  Means  of  the  possibility  that  these  bonds  were  to  be  payable  in  any- 
thing other  than  coin.  The  form  here  proposed  is  the  form  always  used 
by  the  government  in  the  issue  of  these  bonds,  and  they  have  always 
been  paid  in  coin  up  to  this  day;  even  as  late  as  the  31st  of  Decem- 
ber the  bonds  then  coming  due  were  paid  in  coin,  in  accordance  with  the 
uniform  established  practice  of  the  government. 

"  Mr.  Stevens.  I  ought  to  say  that  I  am  informed  by  the  gentieman 
from  Vermont  that  he  did  not  make  the  remark  in  the  committee  which 
I  just  attributed  to  him.     I  so  understood  him. 

"  Mr.  Horton.     I  know  nothing  of  any  such  remark."  * 

The  amendment  of  Mr.  Thomas  was  then  adopted  without 
division. 

Thus,  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have  shown  that  when  the  original  five- 
twenty  bond  bill  passed  the  House,  in  1862,  all  who  referred  to 
the  subject  stated  that  the  principal  of  those  bonds  was  payable 
in  gold ;  that  the  gentleman  from  Pennsylvania  so  stated  five 
distinct  times,  and  no  member  suggested  anything  to  the  con- 
trary; that  when,  in  1863,  that  gentleman  raised  a  doubt  on  the 

^  Congressional  Globe,  January  20,  1863,  p.  412. 


THE  FIVE^TWENTY  BONDS.  363 

subject,  he  was  promptly  met  by  the  statement  of  a  leading 
member  of  the  Committee  of  Ways  and  Means  that  he  never 
before  heard  such  a  suggestion,  and  nobody  on  the  Committee 
of  Ways  and  Means  dreamed  of  the  possibility  of  paying  them 
in  anything  but  coin ;  and  finally,  from  abundant  caution,  and 
because  of  the  doubt  thus  raised,  the  words  "  in  coin "  were 
inserted  in  the  law  authorizing  the  ten-forty  bonds,  and,  so  far 
as  the  record  shows,  no  other  member,  either  in  1862  or  in 
1863,  shared  the  gentleman's  doubt.  Let  it  be  remembered 
that  I  have  not  discussed  the  language  of  the  law,  but  only  its 
history,  and  the  construction  placed  upon  it  by  those  who  made 
it  at  the  time  they  made  it. 


INDIAN  AFFAIRS. 


REMARKS  MADE    IN  THE  HOUSE    OF    REPRESENTATIVES  ON 

VARIOUS  OCCASIONS. 


On  the  8th  of  December,  1868,  Mr.  Garfield  reported,  from  the  Com- 
mittee on  Military  Affairs,  a  bill  providing  for  the  removal  of  the  Indian 
Bureau  from  the  Interior  Department  to  the  War  Department  He  sup- 
ported the  measure  in  the  remarks  following. 

The  Indian  Peace  Commission  mentioned  below  was  organized  August 
6, 1867,  under  an  act  approved  the  previous  July,  and  consisted  of  four 
civilians  and  four  army  officers.  The  object  of  the  Commission  was  "  to 
establish  peace  with  certain  hostile  Indian  tribes."  More  definitely,  it 
was  to  remove,  if  possible,  the  causes  of  war ;  to  secure,  as  far  as  practi- 
cable, the  frontier  settiements,  and  the  safe  building  of  the  railroads  to 
the  Pacific  ;  and  to  suggest  or  inaugurate  some  plan  for  the  civilization  of 
the  Indians. 

MR.  SPEAKER,  —  I  wish  to  take  the  time  of  the  House 
for  but  a  few  moments.  I  shall  state  briefly  the  purpose 
of  the  bill,  and  will  then  yield  some  time  to  the  gentleman  from 
Minnesota,^  chairman  of  the  Committee  on  Indian  Affairs. 

It  will  be  noticed  in  the  first  place,  as  the  title  of  the  bill  indi- 
cates, that  it  proposes  to  restore  the  Bureau  of  Indian  Affairs  to 
the  Department  of  War,  where  all  that  class  of  business  was 
originally  transacted.  When  the  Department  of  the  Interior 
was  formed,  in  1849,  the  management  of  Indian  affairs  was  taken 
from  the  Secretary  of  War  and  placed  in  the  hands  of  the  Sec- 
retary of  the  Interior.  This  bill  does  not  raise  the  question  of 
the  Indian  policy  to  be  pursued ;  it  does  not  propose  to  settle 
any  theory  of  tribal  relations,  or  the  relation  of  the  government 
to  the  Indian  tribes ;  it  does  not  propose  to  determine  whether 
we  shall  continue  to  treat  them  as  separate  nations  subject  to 
treaty  stipulations ;  nor  does  it  touch  the  establishment  or  man- 

1  Mr.  WindonL 


INDIAN  AFFAIRS,  365 

agement  of  reservations.  It  affects  directly  no  one  of  these 
questions.  It  provides  merely  that  the  Interior  Department 
shall  surrender  the  management  of  Indian  affairs  to  the  War 
Department;  and,  in  order  that  there  may  be  no  sudden  shock 
in  the  transfer,  it  is  provided  that  all  the  duties  now  enjoined  by 
law  upon  the  Secretary  of  the  Interior  in  relation  to  Indians 
shall  be  discharged  by  the  Secretary  of  War,  and  that  without 
change  of  system  or  policy. 

Then  the  bill  provides  further,  in  the  second  section,  that  the 
Secretary  of  War  shall  be  authorized,  whenever  in  his  opinion 
it  will  promote  economy  and  the  efficiency  of  the  Indian  ser- 
vice, to  detail  officers  of  the  army  to  perform  all  the  duties 
now  enjoined  by  law  upon  Indian  agents,  sub-agents,  and  other 
persons  employed  in  the  Indian  service.  It  does  not  imme- 
diately abolish  all  the  offices  in  connection  with  the  Indian 
Bureau,  but  it  leaves  it  to  the  discretion  of  the  Secretary  of 
War  to  fill  them  with  officers  of  the  army  when  the  interests 
of  the  service  require  it.  I  have  no  doubt  it  will  ultimately 
result  in  putting  officers  of  the  army  in  the  places  of  the  civil- 
ians now  employed  in  that  department;  but  it  was  thought 
best  not  to  say  that  all  civilians  shall  at  once  be  dismissed  the 
service,  and  military  officers  substituted.  It  is  left  for  the  pres- 
ent to  the  discretion  of  the  Secretary  of  War. 

The  third  section  provides  that  all  contracts  for  transportation 
in  connection  with  the  Indian  service  shall  hereafter  be  made  in 
the  same  manner  as  contracts  for  supplies  or  transportation  for 
the  army;  and  in  the  amendment  which  I  have  added,  —  which 
is  the  only  material  change  in  the  bill  since  I  introduced  it  last 
June,  —  it  is  provided  that  all  expenditures  of  money,  all  appro- 
priations, and  all  payments  made  on  account  of  Indian  affairs, 
shall  hereafter  be  kept  separate  and  exhibited  under  the  head 
of  "  Expenditures  on  account  of  Indians.'*  Hitherto  these  ex- 
penses have  not  been  thus  separated,  and  it  is  unjust  to  the 
army  to  charge  as  a  part  of  its  ordinary  cost  all  the  expenses 
of  an  Indian  war;  moreover,  we  ought  always  to  be  able  to 
classify  our  expenses,  and  know  definitely  what  is  done  with  the 
money.  I  have  therefore  added  to  the  third  section  a  clause  re- 
quiring that  the  accounts,  except  for  the  pay  of  officers  and  sol- 
diers, shall  be  kept  separate.  It  was  thought  that  the  monthly 
pay  of  officers  and  enlisted  men  employed  in  the  Indian  ser- 
vice could  not  be    kept  separate  from  the  pay  of  the  rest  of 


366  INDIAN  AFFAIRS. 

the  army  without  complicating  too  much  the  accounts  of  the 
department 

The  fourth  section  authorizes  the  Secretary  of  War  to  with- 
hold all  special  licenses  for  traders,  and  otherwise  to  regulate 
the  business  of  Indian  trading. 

Now,  without  going  at  all  into  the  general  question  of  what 
ought  to  be  done  with  the  Indians,  I  am  satisfied  that  we  shall 
make  a  successful  beginning  of  the  whole  business  by  putting 
all  this  work  into  the  hands  of  the  War  Department,  where  all 
the  officers  are  subject  to  military  law  and  to  the  jurisdiction  of 
courts-martial.  The  great  advantage  of  the  measure  will  be 
that  we  shall  abolish  a  bureau  and  all  its  appendages,  and  at  the 
same  time,  without  additional  cost  for  salaries,  secure  for  the 
work  efficient  agents  who  are  subject  to  a  much  stricter  account- 
ability than  civilians  can  be  subjected  to.  We  shall  thus  remove 
one  of  the  most  tempting  opportunities  for  corruption  known  to 
our  government  I  do  not,  however,  desire  to  go  into  the 
debate.  The  developments  of  the  last  year,  it  seems  to  me, 
have  been  amply  sufficient  to  bring  the  subject  fully  to  the 
attention  of  the  people. 

I  will  add,  that  two  years  ago  this  bill,  in  almost  the  very 
words  of  the  print  before  us,  passed  the  House  of  Representa- 
tives by  a  large  majority,  but  failed  in  the  Senate.  Last  session 
we  were  not  able  to  reach  it,  or  I  believe  it  would  have  passed 
again.  Then  there  were  some  prominent  officers  connected 
with  the  Indian  Peace  Commission  who  were  not  in  favor  of  the 
transfer.  Now  I  understand  that,  since  the  developments  of 
the  last  fall,  nearly  all  of  those  officers  have  come  to  believe 
that  the  transfer  is  necessary.  General  Grant,  General  Sherman, 
General  Sheridan,  and  nearly  all  the  leading  officers  of  the  army 
connected  with  the  Indian  service,  recommend  this  as  the  initial 
step  in  the  direction  of  reform.  We  therefore  propose  this 
measure  by  itself,  simply  making  the  transfer  to  begin  with,  and 
opening  the  way  for  any  discussion  of  the  Indian  problem  which 
it  may  be  thought  best  to  enter  upon  hereafter. 

[After  Mr.  Windom  and  several  other  gentlemen  had  spoken,  Mr.  Gar- 
field closed  the  debate  in  these  remarks.  The  bill  passed  the  House, 
but  never  came  to  a  vote  in  the  Senate.] 

Mr.  Speaker,  —  I  will  close  this  debate  by  calling  attention  to 
two  or  three  points  that  have  been  made.  And,  first,  let  me 
correct  my  friend  from  Minnesota  in  regard  to  the  decision  of 


INDIAN  AFFAIRS,  367 

the  Peace  Commission  which  sat  last  year  and  made  a  report  in 
reference  to  Indian  affairs.  That  Commission  were  divided  on 
the  question  of  transferring  the  bureau  to  the  War  Department, 
and  they  finally,  in  the  hope  of  maintaining  peace  with  the 
Indians,  recommended,  first,  that  for  the  present  the  bureau 
should  not  be  transferred  to  the  War  Department,  but  should  be 
made  a  separate,  independent  department ;  and,  secondly,  that 
Congress  be  asked  to  pass  an  act  fixing  a  day  not  later  than 
the  1st  of  February,  1869,  when  all  subordinate  officers,  super- 
intendents, and  agents  of  Indian  affairs  should  be  dismissed 
from  their  positions,  because  they  had  become  so  mixed  up 
with  frauds  that  they  could  not  be  trusted.  All  this,  however, 
was  based  upon  the  hope  that  peace  with  the  Indians  might  be 
maintained.  But  the  Commission  very  distinctly  said  that,  if  we 
were  to  have  war,  the  bureau  ought  to  be  transferred  to  the  War 
Department. 

Now,  what  are  the  facts?  The  Commission  concluded  several 
treaties  with  the  Indians.  Here  let  me  say  that  it  seems  to  me 
a  sort  of  mockery  for  the  representatives  of  the  government  of 
the  United  States  to  sit  down  in  a  wigwam  and  make  treaties 
with  a  lot  of  painted  and  half-naked  savages,  only  to  have  those 
treaties  trampled  under  foot  the  very  moment  our  officers  are 
out  of  sight.  This  whole  practice  of  making  treaties  with  our 
wards  is  ridiculous.     Still,  I  will  not  enter  upon  that  subject. 

Mr.  Ingersoll.  I  would  ask  the  gentieman  if  the  Peace  Commission 
itself  did  not  state  that,  in  a  great  majority  of  cases,  the  first  infi*action  of 
the  treaty  came  fi-om  the  whites  instead  of  the  Indians. 

I  happen  to  hold  in  my  hand  a  much  later  document  than  the 
report  of  the  Peace  Commission,  and  I  will  read  from  it.  It 
is  the  official  report  of  Lieutenant-General  Sherman,  dated  No- 
vember I,  1868,  in  which  he  gives  a  detailed  and  elaborate 
account  of  what  has  transpired  in  the  Indian  country  since 
the  Peace  Commission  sat,  and  he  tells  the  reasons  why  that 
Commission  took  the  course  it  did.  He  says  that,  soon  after 
the  conclusion  of  the  treaties,  without  any  new  provocation  on 
the  part  of  the  whites,  the  Indians,  by  concerted  action,  began 
this  terrible  war  upon  the  frontier.  This  report  very  fully  an- 
swers the  suggestion  of  the  gentleman  from  Illinois,^  that  all 
aggressions  are  made  by  the  whites.  After  giving  a  detailed 
account  of  the  Indian  hostilities,  and  what  had  been  done  to 

*  Mr.  Ingcmoll. 


368  INDIAN  AFFAIRS. 

repress  thenii  General  Sherman  argues  the  subject  elaborately, 
and  says,  ''  I  have  to  recommend  that  the  Bureau  of  Indian 
Affairs  should  be  transferred  back  to  the  War  Department, 
where  it  belonged  prior  to  1849."  That  is  his  official  report  of 
November  i,  1868. 

Mr.  CAVANAubH.  I  would  ask  the  gentleman  from  Ohio  if  the  Peace 
Commission  was  not  divided  upon  this  question  at  Chicago  ? 

I  do  not  know  how  it  was  divided  at  Chicago.  I  know  it  was 
divided  last  year,  and  that  the  majority  was  against  the  transfer 
of  the  bureau ;  it  may  have  been  divided  this  year,  but  the  Com- 
mission report  in  favor  of  the  transfer  now. 

Mr.  Mungen.  Did  not  General  Sherman  state,  when  he  was  before 
the  Committee  on  Indian  Affairs  of  this  House  and  the  joint  committee 
of  the  two  houses  last  session,  that  if  the  appropriation  for  the  annuities, 
or  rather  the  advancement  of  the  annuities,  was  not  made  last  May,  ac- 
cording to  the  arrangement,  it  would  bring  on  a  war,  and  did  not  the 
failure  to  make  the  appropriations  produce  the  war? 

I  cannot  say  whether  he  did  or  did  not.  If  he  did,  I  am  not 
aware  of  that  fact.  I  know  that  General  Sherman  says,  in  his 
recent  official  report,  that  this  war  was  brought  on,  not  by  any 
fault  of  the  whites,  but  by  the  faithlessness  and  wickedness  of 
the  Indians  themselves. 

Now  General  Grant  sends  his  annual  report  to  the  Secretary 
of  War  under  date  of  November  24,  1868,  only  two  weeks  ago, 
and  in  it  he  uses  this  language :  **  I  would  earnestly  renew  my 
recommendation  of  last  year,  that  the  control  of  the  Indians 
be  transferred  to  the  War  Department.  I  call  special  attention 
to  the  recommendation  of  General  Sherman  on  the  subject.  It 
has  my  earnest  approval.  It  is  unnecessary  that  the  arguments 
in  favor  of  the  transfer  should  be  restated.  The  necessity  for  it 
becomes  stronger  and  more  evident  every  day.*'  Thus  it  will  be 
seen  that  the  General  of  the  Army  approves  the  reports  of  Gen- 
eral Sherman  and  General  Sheridan.  All  this  is  really  in  ac- 
cordance with  the  report  of  the  Peace  Commission ;  for  they 
say,  if  we  are  to  have  war,  the  bureau  had  better  go  to  the  War 
Department.  And  in  the  same  report  from  which  my  friend 
from  Minnesota  ^  read,  there  is  a  description  of  the  difficulty  we 
are  now  in.     It  is  in  these  words :  — 

"  As  things  now  are,  it  is  difficult  to  fix  responsibility.  When  errors 
are  committed,  the  civil  department  blames  the  military;  the  military 

^  Mr.  Windom. 


INDIAN  AFFAIRS.  369 

retort  by  the  charge  of  inefficiency  or  corruption  against  the  officers  of 
the  bureau.  The  Commissioner  of  Indian  Affairs  escapes  responsibility 
by  pointing  to  the  Secretary  of  the  Interior,  while  the  Secretary  may  well 
respond  that,  though  in  theory  he  may  be  responsible,  practically  he  is 
governed  by  the  head  of  the  bureau.  We  therefore  recommend  that 
Indian  affairs  be  committed  to  an  independent  bureau  or  department. 
Whether  the  head  of  the  department  should  be  made  a  member  of  the 
President's  Cabinet  is  a  matter  for  the  discretion  of  Congress  and  your- 
self, and  may  be  as  well  settled  without  any  suggestions  from  us.** 

That  report  was  made  a  year  ago.  With  this  triple-headed 
monster  managing  Indian  affairs,  neither  head  knowing  how 
much  it  has  to  do,  each  one  throwing  the  blame  of  every  fail- 
ure on  the  other,  with  the  events  of  the  past  season  and  the 
war  we  are  now  suffering,  before  us,  and  with  the  recommen- 
dation of  all  those  most  intimately  acquainted  with  the  sub- 
ject, —  with  all  these  facts  before  us,  I  hardly  think  the  case 
needs  further  argument. 

I  desire,  however,  to  say  a  word  in  reply  to  my  friend  from 
California.^  He  says  we  should  have  an  Indian  policy  first,  and 
make  the  transfer  afterwards.  I  think  not,  Mr.  Speaker.  Let 
us  meet  the  present  necessities  of  the  case  by  making  one  de- 
partment of  the  government  wholly  responsible,  and  call  to  the 
work  officers  who  are  amenable  to  military  laws,  and  we  shall 
have  taken  a  great  step  toward  reforming  abuses.  After  that 
we  can  go  forward  and  determine  what  shall  be  done  with  the 
Indians,  —  whether  they  shall  be  confined  to  reservations,  and 
not  have  any  rights  which  white  men  are  bound  to  respect 
when  they  leave  their  reservations,  or  whether  we  shall  make  a 
rule  that  no  white  who  enters  an  Indian  reservation  without 
authority  shall  have  any  rights  which  an  Indian  is  bound  to  re- 
spect. Whatever  we  do  ought  to  be  the  result  of  deliberation 
and  examination. 


Pending  the  Indian  Appropriation  Bill,  February  4,  1869,  Mr.  Gar- 
field made  these  remarks.  He  had  moved  as  an  amendment  his  bill 
transferring  the  Indian  Bureau  to  the  War  Department,  which  the  Speaker 
ruled  out  of  order. 

Mr.  Speaker,  —  Under  the  rules  of  this  House  we  are  not 
able  to  place  the  question  of  what  shall  be  done  with  the  Indian 

1  Mr.  Higby. 
VOL.   I.  24 


370 


INDIAN  AFFAIRS. 


Bureau  in  such  a  shape  as  to  compel  the  consideration  of  the 
expenditure  of  the  public  money  in  connection  with  the  sub- 
ject. We  are  therefore  brought  back  to  the  question  whether 
we  shall  expend  $2,500,000  of  public  treasure,  as  provided  in 
this  bill.  Here  we  must  open  our  eyes  to  the  channels  through 
which  the  money  is  to  pass,  the  organization  by  which  it  is  to 
be  disbursed.  Of  the  officers  at  the  head  of  the  Indian  Bureau 
in  Washington  I  have  nothing  to  say ;  for  aught  I  know,  they 
are  worthy  men.  I  speak  of  the  organization  of  the  bureau, 
and  its  practical  workings.  As  an  illustration  of  the  manner 
in  which  public  money  is  used  by  the  Bureau  of  Indian  Affairs, 
I  will  quote  a  passage  from  a  letter  which  I  have  recently  re- 
ceived from  a  distinguished  officer  of  the  army,  well  known  to 
me  and  to  the  members  of  this  House,  who  has  seen  many 
years*  service  in  the  Western  Territories. 

''  I  speak  what  I  know  when  I  say  that  of  every  dollar  appropriated 
by  Congress  for  the  Sioux  during  the  last  ten  years,  eighty  cents  have 

been  stolen,  —  only  twenty  cents  reaching  the  Indians In  1859, 

when  the  affiliated  tribes  were  brought  from  Texas,  a  large  sum  was  paid 
for  moving  them,  although  they  moved  without  aid.  They  were  settled 
on  the  Washita,  and  fed  by  the  government  until  the  Rebellion  broke 
out.  They  never  exceeded  twenty-five  hundred  in  number,  yet  they 
were  mustered  on  paper  as  from  six  to  eight  thousand.  The  contract 
was  let  to  feed  them  one  pound  of  beef  and  one  pound  of  flour  per  soul 
daily.  Texas  cattle,  not  averaging  over  four  hundred  pounds  net,  were 
issued  to  them  at  eight  hundred  pounds;  and  although  the  contract 
called  for  good  merchantable  flour,  yet  during  the  year  and  a  half  I  was 
there  the  Indians  never  saw  an  ounce  of  flour.  The  agents  gave  them 
shorts  and  middlings,  while  the  government  paid  for  flour." 

There  is  much  more  in  this  letter  of  the  same  sort. 

Mr.  Ross.  How  many  years  has  that  officer  been  stealing  from  tlie 
Indians  ? 

That  oflScer  is  not  in  any  way  connected  with  the  disburse- 
ment of  money  for  Indian  purposes.  He  speaks  as  an  observer 
of  the  workings  of  the  present  system. 

Now,  after  a  considerable  study  of  this  subject,  I  am  com- 
pelled to  say  that  no  branch  of  the  national  government  is  so 
spotted  with  fraud,  so  tainted  with  corruption,  so  utterly  un- 
worthy of  a  free  and  enlightened  government,  as  this  Indian 
Bureau.     There  are  in  the  Blue  Book  of  1867  over  four  hun- 


INDIAN  AFFAIRS.  371 

dred  names  —  and  I  am  informed  that  the  number  has  been 
increased  during  the  past  year,  so  that  it  is  now  perhaps  six 
hundred  —  of  civil  officers,  employees  in  that  bureau,  whose 
aggregate  annual  salaries  amount  to  nearly  half  a  million  dol- 
lars. I  will  not  say  in  all,  but  in  nearly  all  the  branches  of 
that  bureau,  fraud  **  creams  and  mantles,"  and  is  a  stench  in  the 
nostrils  of  all  good  men.  Yet  we  are  now  compelled  to  refuse 
to  meet  our  treaty  stipulations,  and  to  carry  out  the  obliga- 
tions of  the  government,  or  we  must  let  $2,500,000  go  pouring 
through  the  filthy  channels  that  are  choking  with  the  accu- 
mulated crimes  and  corruptions  of  half  a  century. 

I  repeat  that  I  make  no  personal  charges  against  the  officers 
at  the  head  of  the  Indian  Bureau.  The  primary  fault  is  in  the 
system  itself.  The  very  nature  of  the  service  is  such  that  it 
destroys  responsibility  and  has  not  the  usual  restraints  of  civili- 
zation which  hold  bad  men  in  check,  and  it  allows  the  basest 
passions  of  human  nature  to  effloresce  and  to  exhibit  their  foul- 
est characteristics.  I  do  not  indorse  the  doctrine  of  total  de- 
pravity, nor  will  I  assert  that  man  is  always  corrupt  whenever 
he  has  a  fair  opportunity  to  escape  detection ;  but  it  is  true  that 
opportunity  is  the  door  through  which  corruption  always  enters, 
and  this  Indian  Bureau  is  full  of  doors  that  are  all  ajar.  As 
carrion  attracts  crows,  so  this  bureau  attracts  to  itself  all  forms 
of  official  baseness.  Its  agents,  charged  with  important  dis- 
cretionary duties  and  with  the  disbursement  of  vast  sums  of 
public  money,  transacting  their  business  hundreds  of  miles  be- 
yond the  pale  of  civilization,  beyond  the  jurisdiction  of  the  civil 
courts  and  the  restraining  influence  of  military  discipline,  find 
but  little  difficulty  in  making  the  ignorant  Indian  the  victim  of 
their  rapacity.  It  is  a  part  of  history  that  these  agents,  for 
purposes  of  gain,  foment  Indian  wars,  to  end  which  our  army 
must  bleed  and  our  people  be  taxed.  The  cost  of  our  Indian 
war  last  year  alone  would  feed  every  Indian  in  the  United  States 
five  years.  And  yet  we  are  not  permitted  by  the  supporters  of 
this  Indian  Bureau  to  link  to  this  expenditure  of  money  that 
measure  of  reform  which,  for  more  than  two  years,  has  been 
urged  by  an  overwhelming  majority  of  the  members  of  this 
House. 

This  brings  us  back,  Mr.  Speaker,  to  the  question  with  which 
I  began  my  remarks.  Under  the  circumstances,  shall  we  pay 
the  money  at  all  ?     I  speak  only  for  myself,  but  I  am  resolved 


372  INDIAN  AFFAIRS. 

that  I  will  not  now,  nor  ever  again,  vote  for  an  appropriation 
of  money  to  be  expended  through  the  Indian  Bureau  as  at 
present  organized.  On  my  responsibility  as  a  member  of  this 
House,  I  shall  now  and  henceforward  vote  in  the  negative 
on  the  final  passage  of  every  Indian  bill  for  the  appropriation 
of  money,  until  the  channels  of  that  expenditure  be  cleaned 
and  the  whole  service  purified.  As  a  protest  against  the  pres- 
ent system  and  its  treatment  by  Congress,  I  exhort  members  of 
the  House  of  Representatives  now  to  declare,  in  the  only  man- 
ner left  open  to  us  under  the  rules  of  the  House,  that  not  one 
dollar  more  shall  be  expended  in  the  Indian  service  until  the 
bureau  is  purified  and  reformed. 


February  27, 1869,  the  House  being  in  Committee  of  the  Whole  to 
consider  the  Senate  amendments  to  the  Indian  Appropriation  Bill,  Mr. 
Garfield  made  these  remarks:  — 

Mr.  Chairman,  —  I  desire  to  call  the  attention  of  this  Com- 
mittee of  the  Whole  to  some  of  the  startling  facts  developed  in 
the  bill  now  under  consideration.  I  have  aggregated  the  figures 
as  furnished  by  the  Committee  on  Appropriations,  and  I  call 
special  attention  to  them. 

At  the  commencement  of  this  session,  the  Secretary  of  the 
Interior,  with  all  the  Indian  treaties  then  in  existence  before  him, 
sent  in  his  estimates  for  appropriations  for  Indian  purposes. 
The  total  amount  of  appropriations  asked  for  was  $2,977,982, 
or  $22,018  less  than  $3,000,000.  The  Committee  on  Appro- 
priations and  the  House  of  Representatives  went  over  the 
whole  subject  and  cut  down  the  amount  of  the  estimates  about 
$650,000,  so  that  the  bill,  as  it  passed  the  House,  granted 
$2,312,000  for  Indian  purposes.  Now,  what  has  happened? 
The  Senate  sends  the  bill  back  to  us  with  an  addition  of 
$4,341,897.  In  other  words,  the  total  appropriations  for  In- 
dian purposes,  according  to  the  amended  bill,  are  $6,654,000; 
whereas  less  than  $3,000,000  was  asked  for  by  the  Secretary 
of  the  Interior,  and  less  than  $2,313,000  was  voted  by  the 
House  in  the  bill  which  we  sent  to  the  Senate. 

Now  I  call  the  attention  of  members  to  this  startling  fact, 
that  the  bill  before  us  appropriates  more  than  twice  as  much 
money  as  the  Secretary  of  the  Interior  ever  asked  us  to  give 


INDIAN  AFFAIRS.  373 

him  for  Indian  purposes,  and  nearly  three  times  as  much  as  we 
granted.  And  on  what  grounds  ?  Why,  we  are  told  that  trea- 
ties have  been  made  with  the  Indians.  When?  A  bundle  of 
these  treaties  is  before  us,  and  I  have  not  yet  found  one  that 
bears  a  date  later  than  August,  1868.  There  may  be  later 
treaties,  but  I  have  not  seen  them.  All  the  provisions  of  these 
treaties  were  known  to  the  Secretary  of  the  Interior  long  before 
the  commencement  of  this  session  of  Congress.  Has  anything 
new  transpired  since  we  debated  this  bill  in  the  House  a  few 
weeks  ago?  Have  any  new  necessities  arisen?  **The  treaties," 
it  is  said.  But  these  treaties  are  old,  and  since  they  were  made 
events  have  occurred  in  the  Indian  country  which  make  them 
an  offence  to  the  American  people.  What  are  they?  I  have 
examined  them  hastily,  but  I  am  authorized  by  that  exami- 
nation to  say,  that  nearly  one  half  of  all  the  Indians  whom  the 
Senate  proposes  now  to  feed  and  clothe  under  these  sacred 
treaties  of  which  gentlemen  talk,  have  made  war  upon  us  since 
the  treaties  were  made,  and  have  thus  broken  the  last  thread  of 
binding  authority  that  the  treaties  possessed.  I  have  here  a 
long  list  of  the  names  of  tribes  with  whom  we  have  been  fight- 
ing. It  is  now  proposed,  without  peace  being  made,  without 
reconciliation,  to  pay  the  treasure  of  the  United  States  into  the 
hands  of  these  warriors  who  fight  us  in  summer  and  ask  us  to 
feed  them  in  winter. 

Mr.  Wintdom.  Before  the  gentleman  leaves  the  point  to  which  he 
has  just  referred,  I  wish  to  ask  him  whether  he  asks  this  House  to 
believe  that  all  the  Indians  with  whom  treaties  have  been  made  are  at 
war  with  us  ? 

I  said  nearly  one  half 

Mr.  Windom.  Will  the  gentleman  inform  the  House  what  tribes 
with  which  we  have  made  treaties  are  now  at  war  with  us? 

I  will  name  some  of  them.  The  Southern  band  of  Cheyennes 
and  Arapahoes,  the  bands  of  the  Ogallalla  and  Brul^  Sioux,  led 
by  chiefs  whose  names  are  beyond  the  range  of  my  vocabulary. 

I  hold  in  my  hand  one  of  these  treaties  as  a  specimen  of  the 
lot.  It  is  a  treaty  with  the  Northern  Cheyennes  and  Northern 
Arapahoes,  both  of  which  tribes  we  have  been  fighting  because 
they  began  war  upon  us ;  and  they  are  fighting  to-day,  I  be- 
lieve. I  want  to  call  attention  to  the  provisions  of  this  treaty. 
According  to  the  sixth  article  we  are  bound  for  the  next  thirty 


^  INDIAN  AFFAIRS. 

. ...  X  JO  hunt  up  every  male  Indian  of  the  age  of  fourteen  years, 
...^;  :ivui  ihac  time  forvrard  for  thirty  years,  and  in  September 
.\  .a<a  vcoi'  wc  must  deliver  to  him  —  what  will  be  a  mysterious 
-vhiU  lv>  luoiiy  of  them  —  a  coat,  a  hat,  a  pair  of  pantaloons,  a 
t;*uuwL  &hirt»  and  a  pair  of  woollen  socks.  If  we  are  fortunate 
xUv'u^h  to  catch  this  wild  man  of  the  desert,  and  can  get  these 
sUUVi'lcd  of  clothing  upon  htm,  we  shall  then  have  performed 
ttuc  i>art  of  our  treaty  stipulations.  But  at  any  rate  the  articles 
«uv  to  be  purchased  and  sent  out  there ;  and  the  estimates  of 
ihcir  co^t,  etc.,  must  be  made  up  by  the  Commissioner  of  Indian 
Attairii.  But  more  than  that:  we  are  not  to  satisfy  ourselves 
with  hunting  Indian  boys;  a  chase  must  also  be  made  after  the 
taiicr  ^&ex  of  that  dusky  race.  Whenever  an  Indian  girl  reaches 
the  age  of  twelve  years,  the  paternal  government,  through  this 
Indian  Bureau,  is  to  seek  her  out,  and  deliver  over,  for  her  sole 
u^c  and  benefit,  the  following-named  articles :  a  flannel  skirt  or 
the  goods  necessary  to  make  it,  a  pair  of  woollen  hose,  twelve 
yards  of  calico,  and  twelve  yards  of  cotton  domestic.  And 
then,  for  the  boys  and  girls  under  the  ages  named,  we  are  to 
furnish  such  flannel  and  cotton  goods  as  may  be  needed  to  make 
each  a  suit  as  aforesaid,  together  with  a  pair  of  woollen  socks 
ti>i-  each.  "And  in  order  that  the  Commissioner  of  Indian 
AtVairs  may  be  able  to  estimate  properly  for  the  articles  herein 
named ,  it  shall  be  the  duty  of  the  agent  each  year  to  forward 
him  a  full  and  exact  census  of  the  Indians,  on  which  the  esti- 
mates from  year  to  year  can  be  made." 

Mr.  Butler,  of  Massachusetts.  With  the  gentleman's  permission  I 
woukl  state  a  single  fact.  There  is  no  evidence  of  any  census  having 
yet  been  taken  on  which  these  appropriations  are  made,  except  of  one 
tribe. 

We  think  ourselves  happy  if  we  can  have  a  census  of  the 
white  men  of  this  country  taken  once  in  ten  years ;  but  under 
these  treaties  we  are  compelled  to  take  a  census  of  these  Indian 
tribes  every  year  as  the  basis  upon  which  these  estimates  are  to 
be  made.  Now,  in  the  letter  which  I  presented  a  few  weeks 
a^o  in  reference  to  a  census  of  the  Indian  tribes,  it  is  stated  by 
the  writer,  an  officer  of  high  standing,  that  some  tribes  of  In- 
dians in  the  Washita  country  had  been  estimated  for  and  by  the 
tjovcrnmcnt  as  numbering  from  six  to  eight  thousand,  when 
from  his  own  knowledge  they  have  never  reached  in  any  one 


INDIAN  AFFAIRS.  375 

year  a  higher  number  than  twenty-five  hundred.  That  is  the 
way  the  Indian  census  is  likely  to  be  taken.  A  gentleman  near 
me  states  that  but  one  census  of  but  one  tribe  of  Indians  has 
ever  yet  been  properly  taken. 

But  this  is  not  all.  When  you  have  caught  these  Indians  and 
put  trousers  upon  them,  have  given  them  each  twelve  yards 
of  domestic,  and  made  all  the  other  comfortable  arrangements 
contemplated  in  the  treaties,  you  have  not  yet  completed 
your  work.  The  sixth  article  goes  on  to  declare  that,  in  addi- 
tion to  the  clothing  herein  named,  the  sum  of  ten  dollars  shall 
be  appropriated  annually  for  any  Indian  who  may  be  **  roam- 
ing." If  these  gay  savages  of  the  Western  plains  shall  see  fit 
to  go  "  roaming,"  they  are  to  have  ten  dollars  each  in  addition 
to  the  articles  before  mentioned.  If  you  can  catch  him  he  is 
still  to  have  ten  dollars  for  roaming.  If  any  of  them  shall  con- 
clude "  no  longer  to  roam,"  but  to  settle  down  somewhere 
and  devote  themselves  to  Georgics  and  Bucolics,  they  shall  have 
twenty  dollars  each  for  thirty  years  to  come. 

Why,  say  these  gentlemen,  treaties  are  sacred  and  must  be 
respected !  A  large  number  of  gentlemen  were  unwilling  to 
recognize  the  Alaska  treaty  after  it  had  been  solemnly  rati- 
fied by  the  Senate.  They  did  not  hold  themselves  bound  by 
the  treaty.  Some  of  us,  on  the  contrary,  felt  a  moral  obliga- 
tion to  pay  the  money  in  view  of  the  fact  that  we  had  treated 
with  a  great  and  friendly  power,  although  we  did  it  with  much 
reluctance.  Many  of  the  same  men  who  were  vehement  in 
their  denunciation  of  the  Alaska  treaty,  and  who  stood  by  the 
Treasury  with  heroic  virtue,  now  shudder  with  horror  at  the 
idea  of  breaking  faith  with  these  Indians.  If  there  is  anything 
in  our  policy  more  absurd  than  the  rest,  it  is  the  solemn  farce 
of  entering  into  treaty  stipulations  with  these  roving  bands  of 
savage  Indians,  and  treating  them  as  nations,  —  the  majesty  of 
this  republic  stooping  to  send  out  ambassadors  to  sit  in  council 
with  painted  savages,  our  wards,  and  make  solemn  treaties  with 
them,  as  though  we  were  treating  with  sovereign  nations  !  That 
is  the  feast  to  which  we  are  invited.  This  new  batch  of  treaties 
is  brought  in,  and  we  are  asked  to  bind  ourselves  to  make 
heavy  appropriations  for  thirty  years  to  come. 

Then  we  have  thrown  in  appropriations  for  old  State  claims, 
as  if  for  the  purpose  of  catching  votes.  Here  is  a  provision 
for  the  payment  of  a  little  claim  to  the  State  of  Iowa:   '*  To 


376  INDIAN  AFFAIRS. 

supply  deficiency  of  appropriation  to  pay  for  depredations 
committed  by  Indians  in  Northwestern  Iowa  in  the  year  1857, 
$10,906.34."  But  this  does  not  say  to  whom  it  is  to  be  paid. 
It  appears  to  be  a  little  sop  thrown  to  Iowa,  and  of  course  it  is 
expected  that  the  delegation  from  Iowa  will  defend  the  claims 
of  their  State.  I  have  no  fear  that  they  will  be  caught  by  this 
device.  I  find  on  the  next  ps^e  a  nice  little  sop  to  the  State 
of  Minnesota.  In  addition  to  the  $117,000  paid  to  that  State, 
the  provisions  of  the  Deficiency  Bill  of  1863  are  to  be  extended 
to  cover  $12,000  more  to  be  paid  out  under  an  act  entitled 
"An  Act  to  amend  an  Act/'  etc.  to  appropriate  something 
passed  six  or  seven  years  ago.  If  anybody  understands  from 
the  reading  of  it  what  all  that  means,  let  him  explain  it  It 
evidently  is  designed  to  cover  something  under  its  verbiage. 
Such  is  the  nice  little  intimation  to  the  patriotic  members  from 
Minnesota  that  they  must  stand  by  their  State.  How  many 
other  sops  like  these  can  be  found  scattered  through  the  bill,  I 
do  not  know. 

We  are  invited  to  do  a  patriotic  work  in  the  hundred  and 
seventy-fourth  amendment,  where  we  are  called  upon  to  pay 
five  thousand  dollars  for  the  distribution  of  medals  bearing  the 
portrait  of  General  Grant.  I  suppose  this  is  intended  to  touch 
the  hearts  of  the  military  members  of  the  House.  How  ex- 
ceedingly grateful  they  should  be  for  this  opportunity  to  per- 
petuate in  bronze  the  face  of  the  President  of  the  United 
States!  On  the  seventy- fourth  page  is  this  item:  "Three 
thousand  seven  hundred  dollars,  being  a  balance  of  interest  at 
five  per  cent  per  month  on  $39,950,  held  by  the  United  States, 
July,  1857,  invested  in  Kansas  bonds  in  December,  1861."  My 
friend  from  Kansas  ^  may  perhaps  become  a  convert  to  this 
modest  interest  account. 

A  Member.  Do  I  understand  the  gentleman  to  say  five  per  cent  per 
month? 

Yes,  sir ;  that  is  the  rate  of  interest,  sixty  per  cent  per  an- 
num, —  a  call  upon  the  shy  State  of  Kansas  for  her  vote  in 
carrying  this  bill  through  the  House. 

I  congratulate  myself  on  one  thing.  When  this  bill  passed 
the  House,  I  reluctantly  came  to  the  conclusion  that  it  was  my 
duty  to  vote  against  it  even  in  the  modest  form  it  then  assumed ; 

^  Mr.  Clarke. 


INDIAN  AFFAIRS.  377 

and  I  then  declared  I  would  not  vote  to  send  another  dollar  of 
public  money  through  the  channels  of  the  Indian  Bureau.  I 
am  glad  I  took  the  ground  I  did ;  I  am  confirmed  in  the  wisdom 
of  that  determination  by  the  exhibition  we  have  seen  to-night 
of  the  character  of  the  amendments  to  this  bill ;  and  unless 
gentlemen  can  show  us  how  it  is  that  we  are  to  pay  $3,000,000 
more  than  we  were  asked  to  pay  by  the  officers  in  charge  of 
this  bureau,  I  shall  vote  to  lay  the  bill  and  the  amendments  on 
the  table. 


On  the  25  th  of  January,  18  71,  pending  the  Indian  Appropriation 
Bill,  Mr.  Grarfield  made  these  remarks  :  — 

Mr.  Chairman,  —  I  rise  to  oppose  the  amendment  I 
so  thoroughly  agree  with  the  main  part  of  the  speech  of  the 
gentleman  from  Kentucky  ^  that  my  opposition  to  his  amend- 
ment is  only  pro  format  and  for  the  sake  of  submitting  a  few 
remarks. 

While  it  is  true  that  every  step  toward  a  mild  treatment  of 
the  Indian  tribes  has  resulted  not  only  in  less  barbarism  among 
them,  but  also  in  much  less  expense  to  the  United  States,  I  be- 
lieve we  shall  ultimately  find  one  other  step  necessary.  We 
shall  find  that  the  ballot  rather  than  the  bullet  will  be  the  ulti- 
mate settlement  of  the  Indian  question.  Whenever  we  shall  be 
able  to  erect  a  Territory  in  which  the  Indians  who  are  willing 
to  be  civilized  may  enjoy  a  territorial  form  of  government  and 
exercise  the  ballot,  —  when  they  shall  be  represented  here  by 
their  Delegate,  with  the  hope  that  on  their  attaining  the  proper 
condition  of  industry  and  intelligence  they  will  be  admitted  as 
a  State,  —  wc  shall  present  to  all  the  Indians  of  the  West  the 
alternative  of  going  on  in  their  decline  to  ultimate  extinction,  or 
of  joining  the  movement  in  the  other  direction  towards  civiliza- 
tion. That  movement  will  find  its  culmination  in  the  autonomy 
of  a  State  in  which  civilized  Indians  shall  be  citizens,  governing 
themselves  by  means  of  the  ballot,  and  taking  into  their  own 
hands  the  direction  of  their  destiny.  I  believe  we  shall  find 
ultimately  that,  as  the  ballot  was  the  salvatfon  of  the  negro  race 
lately  enslaved,  so  will  it  be  the  salvation  of  such  of  the  Indian 
race  as  may  be  saved  from  barbarism  and  extinction. 

1  Mr.  Beck. 


INDIAN  AFFAIRS. 

.  ^^io  >>  Other  gentlemen,  Mr.  Garfield  continued :  — ] 

..    ,  >.^4iuau»  I  have  only  two  things  to  say.     The  gentle- 
*  i..u  >ia>;»achusetts ^  and  the  gentleman  from  Tennessee^ 
.^^.^uuAC  chat>  in  the  few  remarks  I  made  a  moment  ago, 
....   :i  favor  of  giving  the  ballot  immediately  to  the  Indians  as 
.  ,.<  oi  all  these  ills.    I  do  not  believe  the  wild  Indian  can 
.;^    .w  DoUot  at  the  present  moment  any  better  than  he  can  use 
.i*N,  >t^»v' Jiu^-book.    On  the  contrary,  I  mean,  when  I  say  that  the 
.\,*XN  ■*  the  ultimate  solution  of  the  question,  that,  if  we  first 
>^^  :iKsc  Indians  on  reservations,  if  we  give  them  the  right  to 
V^<i  yf^P*^*^/  "^  severalty,  if  we  lead  them  up  by  degrees,  we 
sAo^l  tind  by  and  by  that,  at  the  top  of  a  slowly  ascending  scale, 
»^y  will  have  the  ballot  and  a  distinct  self-government,  which 
^ill  be  the  final  solution  of  the  problem.     I  did  not  mean  to  im- 
i>Iy  that  this  result  would  be  reached  in  a  day  or  a  year.    That 
education  is  a  step  toward  the  ballot,  no  one  can  doubt.    If  we 
aiKiIyzc  free  institutions  it  will  be  found  that  the  ballot  and 
e^,lucation  are  as  inseparable  as  union  and  liberty,  and  any  man 
who  divorces  them  will  destroy  the  structure  of  our  government. 
lUit  there  is  one  other  thing  which  I  wish  to  say  in  this  con- 
mvlion.     Gentlemen  have  spoken  of  the  difficulties   we    have 
had  with  the  wild  Indians  of  the  West,  and  of  the  horrible  mas- 
SwUK's  perpetrated  upon  our  frontier  settlements;   and  the  gen- 
tleman from  Texas  attempted  to  paint  in  a  Preraphaelite  style 
svuuo  of  the  extreme  cases  of  suffering  which  had  come  under 
his  notice.     I  wish  to  call  the  attention  of  the  House  to  this 
historical  fact,  —  that  north  of  us,  in  the  British  possessions,  and 
over  our  southern   border,  in   Mexico,  beyond  our   influence, 
there  have  been  no  Indian  wars.     There  never  was  an  Indian 
massacre  in  the  British  and  Russian  possessions  north  of  us. 
There  has  been  no  Indian  massacre  even  under  Mexican  rule. 
()nly  here  in  our  American  belt,  in  our  United  States  alone, 
have    there    been  Indian  massacres.     And  why?     Because  we 
have   pursued  the  powder  and  bullet  plan  of  the   gentleman 
from  Nevada,  and  because  we  have  gone  out  to  them  with  fire 
and  sword. 

Mr.  Degener.    I  ask  the  gentleman  to  yield  to  me  for  one  moment. 

The  result  has  been  that  we  have  had  murder  and  rapine  and 
all  the  horrors  of  Indian  slaughter. 

^  Mr.  Dawes.  2  \fr  Prosser. 


INDIAN  AFFAIRS.  379 

Mr.  Benjamin  rose. 

I  see  all  the  warlike  gentlemen  on  their  feet.  I  see  them 
springing  up  all  around  me,  like  warriors  from  the  ambush 
ready  for  fight ;  and  the  spirit  of  their  remarks  makes  me  feel 
as  though  I  should  have  to  dodge  a  hatchet  for  the  sentiments 
I  have  uttered.     They  have  the  field,  for  my  time  has  expired. 


April  20,  1876,  the  House  being  in  Committee  of  the  Whole  to 
consider  the  bill  to  transfer  the  bureau  of  Indian  Affairs  from  the  Interior 
to  the  War  Department,  Mr.  Garfield  made  these  remarks ;  — 

Mr.  Chairman,  —  In  the  year  1867  the  Committee  on  Mili- 
tary Affairs,  of  which  I  was  a  member,  reported  a  bill  that 
passed  this  House  making  the  transfer  which  is  now  proposed. 
In  1868,  in  the  following  Congress  I  believe,  I  was  myself 
charged  with  the  duty  of  reporting  a  bill  which  made  the  trans- 
fer of  Indian  affairs  to  the  War  Department.  The  grounds  of 
our  action  at  that  time  were  very  clear,  and  one  of  them  has 
troubled  me  a  good  deal.  As  an  original  proposition,  I  am  dis- 
posed to  believe  that,  if  this  transfer  was  made,  we  could  by 
court-martial  punish  frauds  upon  the  Indians,  and  in  the  use  of 
money  for  Indian  affairs,  more  thoroughly  and  successfully  than 
we  can  through  any  civil  establishment.  That  point  I  am  bound 
to  believe  is  on  general  principles  correct. 

But  the  main  ground  in  favor  of  the  transfer  in  1868  was  this. 
We  were  then  pursuing  what  may  be  called  a  war  policy  towards 
the  Indians  ;  wc  were  having  more  Indian  war  than  Indian  peace ; 
we  were  obliged  to  have  recourse  to  the  army  in  order  to  manage 
the  Indians  successfully;  and  the  mixture  of  military  and  civil 
management  was  about  as  bad  a  system  as  there  could  be.  The 
army  destroyed  the  Indians,  and  the  civil  department  took  care 
of  them  and  paid  them  money.  I  then  became  satisfied,  and 
so  said  in  a  speech  which  I  have  here  in  the  Globe,  that  the 
whole  civil  part  of  our  Indian  service  was  as  rotten  and  corrupt 
as  corruption  could  well  be,  and  that  we  must  cut  out  the  can- 
cer if  we  could  not  otherwise  remove  it.  I  went  so  far  as  to 
vote  against  the  Indian  Appropriation  Bill,  declaring  that,  while 
such  a  policy  continued,  I  would  never  vote  another  dollar  of 
public  money  to  be  expended  through  that  old  channel. 


38o  INDIAN  AFFAIRS. 

There  was  another  consideration.  We  were  then  making 
treaties  with  the  Indians  all  through  the  West;  we  were  calling 
those  savage  tribes  "  nations,"  and  making  treaties  with  them  as 
though  two  nations  were  sitting  in  council.  All  that  seemed  to 
be  bad. 

We  passed  a  bill  through  the  House  by  a  large  vote,  making 
the  proposed  transfer.  It  went  to  the  Senate,  and  while  it  was 
pending  there,  while  we  were  expecting  it  would  soon  become 
a  law,  the  Piegan  massacre  occurred,  which  shocked  the  sen- 
sibilities of  the  whole  nation.  The  Senate  immediately  dropped 
the  bill,  and  of  course  it  failed  to  become  a  law.  Shortly  after- 
ward General  Grant  was  inaugurated,  and  with  his  inaugura- 
tion, or  very  soon  afterward,  began  what  is  known  as  the  peace 
policy.  Congress  followed  his  lead,  and  agreed  that  there 
should  be  no  further  general  treaties  made  with  the  Indians  as 
tribes,  but  that,  co-operating  with  the  churches  of  the  country, 
a  policy  of  conciliation,  of  civilization,  and,  if  possible,  of  Chris- 
tianization,  should  be  adopted,  instead  of  the  old,  wretched  pol- 
icy of  mixed  war  and  peace  which  we  had  pursued  for  years. 
I  was  somewhat  in  doubt  about  the  wisdom  of  the  peace  policy. 
I  studied  the  question  with  a  good  deal  of  care.  We  had,  un- 
der this  new  policy,  and  very  early  in  its  administration,  one 
Commissioner  who  certainly  did  credit  to  the  country  and  the 
service.  I  refer,  of  course,  to  General  Walker.  Under  his  able, 
wise,  and  honest  management  we  saw  the  Indian  Bureau  very 
largely  rescued  from  the  slough  into  which  it  had  fallen.  And 
we  have  now  a  Commissioner^  who  is  pursuing  the  same  gen- 
eral line  of  policy,  ably  and  honestly,  I  believe,  that  was  pur- 
sued by  General  Walker.  We  have  now  had  five  full  years 
of  the  peace  policy,  and  a  large  share  of  all  the  wild,  roaming 
Indians  of  1868  are  now  peacefully  employed  in  taking  the  first 
steps  toward  civilization.  If  the  reports  of  this  bureau  are  to 
be  credited,  and  the  reports  of  the  Peace  Commissioners  as  well, 
a  great  step  has  been  taken  in  that  direction. 

Mr.  Chairman,  I  have  stated  the  Indian  problem  as  it  now 
exists.  There  are  two  facts  which  show  the  management  of 
our  Indian  affairs  to  be  a  great  deal  less  expensive  now  than 
before.  In  the  first  place,  while  we  appropriate  more  money  to 
be  expended  through  the  Indian  Bureau  than  before,  we  appro- 
priate less  to  be  expended  through  the  War  Department  for 

1  Mr.  J.  Q.  Smith,  of  Ohio. 


INDIAN  AFFAIRS.  381 

fighting  the  Indians,  —  far  less  than  we  did  before ;  and  there- 
fore, on  the  score  of  economy,  we  are  certainly  paying  less 
money  out  of  the  Treasury  than  under  the  old  policy.  That  is 
the  first  fact.  But,  secondly,  it  is  claimed  by  those  who  have 
looked  carefullyinto  the  subject,  that  a  great  and  worthy  pro- 
gress has  been  made  in  the  direction  of  civilizing  and  Christian- 
izing these  Indians.  I  am  not  here  to  say  I  believe  very  strongly 
in  the  ultimate  success  of  making  good  citizens  of  the  Indians. 
I  wish  it  could  be  done.  It  is  our  duty  to  see  the  peace  policy 
fairly  tried.  Now,  in  the  midst  of  the  trial,  I  do  not  think  we 
should  abandon  it  by  turning  the  whole  business  over  to  a  new 
set  of  people,  with  new  motives  and  new  opinions  on  the  sub- 
ject. After  we  have  fairly  tried  it,  if  it  proves  to  be  a  failure,  I 
will  then  favor  transferring  the  bureau  to  the  War  Department ; 
but  I  believe  a  fair,  honest  trial  of  the  peace  policy  of  the  Presi- 
dent ought  first  to  be  had. 

The  circumstances  under  which  I  advocated  the  transfer  were 
entirely  different  from  those  now  existing.  The  argument 
which  I  used  then  was  an  argument  based  on  entirely  different 
facts  from  those  which  now  exist.  I  hold  we  ought  not  now 
to  change  our  policy  when  the  conditions  are  so  different  from 
what  they  were  in  1868.  I  admit  there  is  a  great  deal  to  be 
said  on  both  sides  of  this  question ;  I  admit  that  since  this  de- 
bate began  I  have  wavered  in  my  own  mind  as  to  how  I 
should  act;  but  it  is  not  in  the  remotest  degree  on  account  of 
party  feeling  that  I  take  the  position  I  do  to-day.  I  would  as 
cheerfully  vote,  and  when  this  debate  began  I  was  inclined  to 
vote,  with  my  friends  over  the  way;  but  the  debate  has  dis- 
closed a  greater  progress  toward  civilization  on  the  part  of  the 
Indian  as  the  fruit  of  the  peace  policy  than  I  supposed  the  facts 
warranted  us  in  believing;  and  on  that  ground,  and  on  that 
ground  alone,  I  insist  we  should  not  now,  until  the  peace  policy 
has  had  full  time  to  develop  whether  it  is  good  or  bad,  wise 
or  unwise,  abandon  the  plan  inaugurated  by  the  government. 

Mr.  Banning.  I  wish  to  ask  the  gentleman  if  it  was  not  after  the 
Piegan  massacre,  and  after  the  Senate  had  defeated  the  bill  in  1868, 
that  the  President  of  the  United  States  recommended  army  control  of 
the  Indians? 

I  think  General  Grant,  whether  he  was  President  then  or  not, 
recommended  the  transfer  later  than  the  Piegan  massacre ;  but 
I  remember  that  the  House  and  the  Senate  and  the  country 


382  INDIAN  AFFAIRS. 

were  shocked  at  that  massacre,  and  we  regarded  it  at  that  time 
as  the  breaking  down  of  the  bill.  I  do  not  say  that  was  a* 
reason  why  the  bill  should  not  have  passed,  for  I  was  in  favor 
of  the  bill  for  some  time  after  the  Piegan  massacre;  and  I 
would  still  be  in  favor  of  it  if  we  had  now  tlie  old  semi-civil, 
semi-military  policy  that  brought  war  to  the  country  and  de- 
struction to  the  Indian. 

Mr.  Steele.  WiH  the  gentleman  say  that  the  same  mixed  S3rstem  of 
civil  and  military  authority  that  existed  in  1868  does  not  exist  to-day  at 
every  one  of  these  agencies  ? 

I  am  told  not.  I  hold  in  my  hand  the  report  of  the  Commis- 
sioner of  Indian  Affairs  on  that  very  subject,  in  which  he  says 
they  have  now  so  far  subordinated  the  wild  tribes  to  the  man- 
agement of  the  agencies,  that  only  in  two  principal  districts 
is  there  any  serious  necessity  for  the  presence  of  the  army  to 
keep  them  in  peace.  In  the  whole  Indian  Territory,  the  whole 
of  California,  the  whole  of  Utah,  almost  all  of  New  Mexico,  — 
the  larger  part  of  our  territory  where  the  Indians  are  now  found, 
—  we  do  not  need  the  army,  and  there  is  no  prospect  of  its 
being  necessary  to  exercise  force.  But  up  in  the  wild  Sioux 
country,  and  perhaps  in  one  other  district,  we  still  need  the  pres- 
ence of  troops  to  prevent  threatened  outbreaks.  So  I  think  my 
answer  to  my  friend  is  complete,  that  the  difference  is  very 
great  between  now  and  then. 


COMMISSIONER    WELLS'S    REPORT. 

REMARKS   MADE   IN  THE    HOUSE  OF  REPRESENTATIVES, 

January  19,  1869. 


The  following  remarks  were  made  pending  this  resolution  :  "  Resolved y 
That  twenty  thousand  copies  of  the  Report  of  the  Special  Commissioner 
of  the  Revenue,  with  appendices  complete,  be  printed  for  the  use  of  the 
House,  and  one  thousand  bound  copies  of  the  same,  for  the  use  of 
the  Treasury  Department." 


MR.  SPEAKER,  —  I  confess  my  great  surprise  at  the  oppo- 
sition of  the  gentleman  from  Pennsylvania  ^  to  the  print- 
ing of  this  report  of  the  Special  Commissioner  of  the  Revenue. 
I  think,  if  the  gentleman  is  really  in  earnest  about  it,  he  has 
made  a  most  damaging  admission.  We  have  an  officer  ap- 
pointed to  examine  and  report  to  us  facts  and  recommenda- 
tions in  regard  to  our  financial  condition.  The  Commissioner's 
annual  report  is  before  us,  and  the  gentleman  does  not  wish  it 
printed.  He  admits,  in  the  first  place,  that  the  facts  stated  are 
generally  correct,  —  that  the  statistics  collected  and  arranged  in 
tables  are  true  and  correctly  stated ;  but  declares  that  the  mar- 
shalling of  the  facts  is  dangerous,  —  that  they  are  put  together  in 
such  a  way,  and  such  inferences  are  drawn  from  them,  that  the 
report  is  dangerous  to  Congress,  and  to  the  enlightened  people 
of  the  country.  The  gentleman  asks  this  House  to  make  a  hu- 
miliating confession,  in  which  I,  for  one,  am  not  ready  to  join. 
If  any  theories  or  opinions  of  mine  can  be  damaged  by  facts,  so 
much  the  worse  for  my  theories.  It  seems  to  me  that  the  gen- 
tleman gives  away  his  case,  abandons  his  ground  of  attack,  when 
he  starts  out  by  admitting  the  general  correctness  of  the  figures. 
What,  then,  is  the  fault  he  finds  with  the  Commissioner?  If 
the  things  stated  are  facts,  what  is  the  matter?    Why,  the  gen- 

1  Mr.  Kellev. 


384  COMMISSIONER    WELLSS  REPORT 

tlcinan*s  grievance  is  contained  in  a  single  paragraph  of  the 
report  found  on  page  15.  As  the  result  of  the  facts  collected 
from  a  very  wide  range  of  observation,  the  Commissioner  con- 
cludes that  the  cost  of  living,  the  food,  clothing,  shelter,  light, 
and  fuel  of  families,  in  this  country,  was  about  seventy-eight 
per  cent  higher  in  1868  than  it  was  in  1860-61,  the  year  before 
the  war ;  while  the  average  wages  of  the  unskilled  laborer  are 
but  fifty  per  cent  higher,  and'  of  the  skilled  laborer  but  sixty 
per  cent  higher.  These  are  the  two  deductions  drawn  by  the 
Special  Commissioner  from  the  great  mass  of  facts  and  figures 
brought  under  his  observation;  and  hence  he  concludes  that 
the  laboring  man  can  lay  up  less  of  his  earnings  at  the  end  of 
the  year  now  than  he  could  in  1 860. 

The  Commissioner  has  also  shown  that  the  wealth  in  the 
hands  of  the  capitalists  of  the  country  is  rapidly  increasing. 
This  does  not  provoke  an  attack  from  the  gentleman ;  he  either 
does  not  deny  it,  or  is  glad  to  have  it  proved ;  but  he  is  unwill- 
ing to  have  it  shown  that  labor  is  not  reaping  its  full  share  of 
the  increasing  wealth  of  the  country.  Has  the  gentleman  im- 
peached the  correctness  of  the  Commissioner's  facts  ?  Not  at 
all.  He  even  admits  them.  It  must  be,  then,  that  he  refuses  to 
print  this  report  because  its  facts  and  deductions  do  not  square 
with  his  theories  and  notions.  I  call  the  gentleman's  attention 
to  the  tables. 

Here  are  twenty-five  pages  of  the  Appendix  to  the  report, 
just  from  the  press,  wholly  devoted  to  the  very  sybjcct  of  the 
gentleman's  complaint.  Appendix  D  is  a  series  of  tables  ex- 
hibiting the  comparative  cost  of  provisions,  clothing,  rent,  and 
all  that  makes  up  the  cost  of  living,  in  the  years  i860  and  1868. 
These  prices  were  taken  from  the  cities  and  rural  districts  of 
every  State,  beginning  with  Maine,  and  reaching  to  Ohio.  I 
wish  the  tables  included  the  West  also.  Appendix  E  shows  the 
average  wages  of  labor;  and  these  tables  are  made  up  from 
an  equally  wide  range  of  observation.  The  various  classes  of 
trades  and  labor  are  exhibited  in  the  different  States  named, 
and  if  the  statements  are  incorrect,  let  them  be  met  and  ex- 
ploded. Now,  it  becomes  gentlemen  who  discredit  the  report 
of  the  Commissioner  to  answer  the  facts  set  forth  in  these  ta- 
bles. I  do  not  quarrel  with  these  facts.  I  only  regret  that 
the  tables  do  not  include  statistics  from  Ohio,  and  the  States 
farther  West. 


COMMISSIONER   WELLS'S  REPORT.  385 

Mr.  Dawes.  Does  the  gentleman  mean  to  say  that  the  Commissioner 
is  at  fault  in  omitting  the  Western  States  ? 

I  do  not.  I  only  say  I  regret  that  these  States  were  not  in- 
cluded. Now,  sir,  this  result  reached  by  the  Commissioner  is 
no  new  thing.  In  1866,  the  Commissioner  reported  that  from 
i860  to  1866  wages  had  risen  sixty  per  cent,  and  the  cost  of 
living  ninety  per  cent.  Why  was  not  that  fact  challenged  at 
that  time?  The  statement  has  been  long  enough  before  the 
country  to  have  been  refuted  long  ago  if  it  is  not  true. 

Let  me  ask  attention  for  a  moment  to  some  facts  that  I  have 
lately  obtained.  Hearing  that  this  attack  was  to  be  made  upon 
the  report,  I  have  asked  information  from  two  sources,  in  order 
to  test  the  correctness  of  the  Commissioner's  position. 

In  the  first  place,  we  have  in  the  army,  in  the  price  of  rations, 
a  very  good  mode  of  testing  the  cost  of  living.  The  fullest 
competition  is  allowed  to  bidders,  and  the  price  of  the  ration 
is  the  result  of  this  competition  for  supplying  the  army.  I  have 
examined  the  records  of  the  commissary  department,  and  find 
that  the  price  of  rations  during  the  war  confirms  in  a  remarka- 
ble manner  the  conclusions  of  the  Commissioner.  In  the  next 
place,  I  hold  in  my  hand  a  table  that  shows  what  we  have  been 
paying  to  laborers  employed  in  our  public  works ;  and  the  price, 
which  is  adjusted  to  the  general  market,  sustains  fully  the  con- 
clusions of  the  Commissioner  on  that  subject.  In  1861,  here  in 
Washington,  we  paid  unskilled  laborers  $[.25  per  day;  we  now 
pay  $1.75  per  day,  an  increase  of  forty  per  cent.  For  skilled 
labor  the  increase  ranged  from  fifty-five  to  seventy-five  per 
cent.  The  following  is  an  official  statement  of  daily  wages  paid 
in  this  city :  — 

^861.  1868.  Incrcas« 

Carpenters ^2.00  JS3-5o  75 

Laborers 1.25  1.75  40 

Stone-masons 2.50  4.00  60 

0  Brick-masons 2.50  4.00  60 

Machinists 2.00  3.00  50 

Plumbers 2.25  3.50  55 

Blacksmiths 2.00  3.00  50 

We  are  building  custom-houses  and  post-offices,  and  are  im- 
proving our  rivers  and  harbors,  all  over  the  United  States,  and 
our  own  official  records,  which  were  not  carried  into  the  Com- 
missioner's table,  so  far  as  I  have  been  able  to  examine  them, 

VOL.   I.  2$ 


386  COMMISSIONER    WELLS'S  REPORT, 

all  verify  the  statistics  of  the  Commissioner.  I  hold  in  my  hand, 
also,  a  copy  of  one  of  the  New  York  leading  papers,  published 
only  a  few  days  ago,  in  which  the  editor  says :  — 

"  There  are  few  men  in  this  tax-ridden  country  who  are  more  familiar 
with  the  cause,  or  who  more  clearly  see  the  unfortunate  tendency,  of  the 
unnatural  style  of  living  which  prevails  at  the  present  day  than  Mr. 
David  Wells,  the  Special  Commissioner  at  Washington,  from  whose  re- 
port we  have  previously  taken  much  that  was  interesting  and  instructive. 
In  his  opinion,  these  are  unhealthy  times  for  individuals,  and  many  of 
us  can  heartily  endorse  that  opinion.  We  are,  to  be  sure,  getting  on  an 
average  better  pay  than  in  other  days,  but  how  about  our  expenses? 
Look  at  houses,  coal,  flour,  butter,  milk,  eggs,  wood,  cloth,  and  leather, 
they  are  no  better  than  they  were  ten  years  ago,  xior  less  plentiful,  but 
their  cost  is  vasdy  greater ;  so  much  greater,  in  fact,  that  rents  are  pos- 
itively extortionate,  and  the  absolute  necessaries  of  life  beyond  the  reach 
of  thousands  in  this  very  city." 

This  is  the  opinion  of  a  journalist  who  is  speaking  of  affairs 
in  his  own  city,  and  speaking  of  his  own  knowledge. 

But  the  gentleman  from  Philadelphia^  has  given  us  a  new  and 
remarkable  revelation  about  the  year  i860.  It  is  the  first  time 
I  have  ever  heard  it  said,  by  a  responsible  gentleman,  that  that 
year  was  a  disastrous  one  for  the  American  people.  The  gen- 
tleman stated  —  I  wrote  down  his  words  —  that  1860-61  was 
the  darkest  period  ever  seen  in  this  country;  and  he  went  on  to 
exhibit  how  hard  it  was  for  laboring  men  to  find  employment. 
Now,  Mr.  Speaker,  I  differ  widely  from  the  honorable  gentle- 
man. I  remember  very  well  that  the  distinguished  chairman  of 
the  Committee  of  Ways  and  Means,^  some  three  years  ago, 
referred  to  the  year  i860  as  the  most  prosperous  year  which 
this  republic  ever  saw;. and  he  gave  his  reasons  for  the  state- 
ment. It  was  a  year  of  plenty,  of  great  increase.  I  remember, 
moreover,  that  it  was  a  year  of  light  taxes.  There  was  but  one 
other  great  people  on  the  face  of  the  globe  so  lightly  taxed 
as  the  American  people.  Now  we  are  the  most  heavily  taxed 
people  except  one,  perhaps,  on  the  face  of  the  globe ;  and  the 
weight  of  nearly  all  our  taxes  falls  at  last  on  the  laboring  man. 
This  is  an  element  which  the  gentleman  seems  to  have  omitted 
from  his  calculations  altogether. 

The  gentleman  says  that  at  the  present  time  laborers  are 
doing  better  than  in  i860.     I  ask  him,  How  many  strikes  there 

1  Mr.  Kelley.  2  Mr.  J.  S.  Morrill. 


COMMISSIONER    WELLS'S  REPORT.  387 

were  among  laborers  in  1860-61?  Were  there  any  at  all? 
And  how  many  were  there  in  1868?  Will  the  gentleman  deny 
that  strikes  exhibit  an  unsettled  and  unsatisfactory  condition 
of  labor  in  its  relations  to  capital?  In  our  mines,  in  our  mills 
and  furnaces,  in  our  manufacturing  establishments,  are  not  the 
laborers  every  day  joining  in  strikes  for  higher  wages,  and  say- 
ing that  they  need  them  on  account  of  the  high  price  of  provis- 
ions, or  that  the  capitalists  get  too  large  a  share  of  the  profits? 
I  want  to  say,  in  this  connection,  that  I  believe  the  condition  of 
the  laboring  man  in  the  West  is  better  than  in  the  East.  The 
element  of  transportation  does  not  enter  so  largely  into  his 
cost  of  living.  I  confess  that  I  was  somewhat  surprised  at  the 
statistics  of  the  Commissioner ;  for  if  I  had  been  asked,  I  should 
have  said  the  laboring  men  of  my  district  were  doing  nearly 
as  well  as  they  were  doing  in  i860,  and  perhaps  in  some  cases 
better ;  but  still  I  cannot  impeach  the  array  of  facts  he  has  ex- 
hibited. They  refer  to  the  eastern  portion  of  the  country,  how- 
ever, and  the  local  conditions  may  be  different  there. 

But  let  me  advert  for  a  moment  to  another  point  in  the  state- 
ment of  the  gentleman.  He  speaks  with  triumph  of  the  amount 
that  is  now  deposited  by  laboring  men  in  savings  banks,  as  com- 
pared with  i860.  Why,  Mr.  Speaker,  it  seems  to  me  that  the 
facts  lead  to  a  conclusion  exactly  the  opposite  of  that  which 
the  gentleman  draws.  What  does  it  mean?  It  means  that  in 
this  country,  and  especially  in  the  East,  in  the  unsettled  state  of 
our  commerce  and  of  our  currency,  men  dare  not  invest  their 
little  earnings  in  business,  and  they  therefore  put  them  into 
savings  banks,  where  they  are  lightly  taxed,  to  await  solid 
values  and  steady  times.  In  the  West  it  is  not  generally  so. 
A  man  can  buy  land  and  improve  it,  and  thus  can  work  for 
himself,  and  have  his  profits  as  well  as  his  support  while  he  is  la- 
boring. I  think  that  will  explain  the  reason  why  savings  banks 
are  more  patronized  in  the  East  than  in  the  West. 

The  gentleman  has  referred  to  railroad  iron  and  the  vast 
amount  recently  brought  into  this  country.  Sir,  that  is  the 
most  natural  thing  in  the  world.  During  the  war  the  build- 
ing of  railroads  was  almost  wholly  suspended.  The  work  has 
revived  and  greatly  increased  since  the  war,  and  in  1868  the 
new  roads  were  ready  for  their  iron.  Hence  the  unusual  de- 
mand and  the  large  importation  of  rails  to  which  the  gentleman 
refers.     He  must  remember  that  railroad  iron  has  the  least  pro- 


388  COMMISSIONER    WELLS'S  REPORT. 

tection  of  any  form  of  iron.  It  bears  a  duty  of  but  seventy  per 
cent,  while  the  next  higher  grade  of  iron  bears  a  duty  of  one 
hundred  and  twenty-five  per  cent.  Another  fact:  while  speak- 
ing of  rolling-mills,  I  would  ask  the  gentleman  from  Pennsyl- 
vania, and  my  friend  from  the  Johnstown  district,^  if  they  know 
of  any  railroad-iron  mill  in  this  country  that  has  not  all  the 
business  it  can  do?  Do  they  know  such  a  mill  that  has  not 
to-day  more  orders  than  it  can  fill?  I  say  this  to  show  that 
even  the  heavy  importations  of  English  rails  have  not  broken 
down  our  manufacturers. 

One  word  more.  This  is  not  the  first  time  we  have  heard  a 
clamor  against  the  Commissioner  of  the  Revenue.  I  must  ad- 
vert for  a  moment  to  something  that  occurred  about  two  years 
ago.  At  that  time  the  Commissioner  recommended  a  reduction 
of  the  tax  on  whiskey,  and  gave  it  as  his  opinion  that  thereby 
the  amount  of  revenue  from  that  source  would  be  increased.  In 
certain  quarters  a  great  clamor  was  raised  against  him,  and  I 
remember  very  well  that  a  circular  was  laid  before  the  members 
of  the  House  charging  the  Commissioner  with  being  in  the  in- 
terest of  the  whiskey  men.  Now,  what  was  the  fact?  After 
wasting  the  revenues  of  this  country  in  a  fruitless  and  vain 
attempt  to  collect  a  tax  of  t\vo  dollars  per  gallon  on  whiskey, 
the  tax  was  reduced.  And  with  what  results?  Everything 
promises  that  the  revenue  from  this  source  will  this  year  reach 
$40,000,000,  while  it  never  before  has  reached  $30,000,000  a 
year,  even  when  the  tax  was  two  dollars.  I  have  in  my  hand  a 
record  of  the  collections  in  the  Chicago  district  for  a  few  months 
of  this  year,  showing  that  the  amount  of  revenue  from  the  pres- 
ent rate  of  tax  upon  whiskey  is  greater  than  for  the  correspond- 
ing months  when  the  rate  of  tax  was  higher.  It  shows  the 
amounts  of  tax  paid  on  whiskey  under  the  sixty-five  cent  tax, 
and  under  the  two-dollar  tax  for  the  same  months  of  1867  and 

1868:  — 

1867.  1868. 

July 14,934  ^165,552 

August 6,821  214,726 

September 11,654  84,772 

October 54,825  216,916 

November 33,29  ^  304,405 

December 87,755  326,369 

Total ^199,280  Ji,3i  2,740 

1  Mr.  Morrell. 


« 


COMMISSIONER    WELLS'S  REPORT.  389 

The  tax  in  1867  was  three  times  as  large  per  gallon  as  in  1868, 
and  yet  look  at  the  respective  receipts  in  the  two  years.  On 
the  sixty-five  cent  tax  the  receipts  are  nearly  seven  times  as 
great  as  on  the  two-dollar  tax! 

An  officer  who  has  served  the  country  so  ably  and  faithfully 
as  the  Special  Commissioner  of  the  Revenue  deserves  well  of 
Congress  and  the  country.  I  trust  the  motion  to  print  will 
prevail. 


V         V  k^ 


V.    ISSUES   OF   1868. 


;■: -VKRED  AT  ORWELL,  OHIO, 
August  28,  1868. 


,    -  A   v'lllZIiNS, — This  vast  audience  reminds  me  of 

;.         '.    .. .^  v'lU'O  which  met  mc  on  this  same  spot  some  four 

.-,  .i;kI  which  was  addressed  by  Governor  Tod^  and 

L  iv'iucmbcr  at  that  time  the  Governor  said  that  it  was 

.^,  *  \  v»no  of  the  last  campaigns  in  which  he  would  find  it 

.  ^  ^  . .  I  \  u»  stay  away  from  the  old  Democratic  party ;  that  he 

•  ■>.\1   the  Union  party  only  for  the  purpose  of  putting 

.,  •  -.'.u'  Krbclliun  and  restoring  the  Union;    that  he  trusted 

x   .  '.   iiiuv  another  year  had  passed  the  great  work  would  be 

'  vpli-lu'il,  and  that  the  Democratic  party  would  renew  the 

,  ,  v.  .-.ii^u  t)f  other  questions  and  other  issues  on  which  the 
,  •.■u'  party  cuuld  agree.  Jkit  four  years  have  passed  by,  and 
xv-.i  '.lill  fuul  the  (jovernor  battling  for  the  samegreatcau.se, 
iiwl  manfully  advocating  the  same  great  doctrines,  —  still  plead- 
M»i;  and  laboring  for  the  success  of  the  Union  party.  Governor 
l\»d  now  makes  another  proj^hecy,  —  that  he  will  yet  be  i)er- 
milled  to  die  in  the  bosom  of  the  old  party.  But,  fellow- 
V  ili/.ens,  there  are  two  objections  to  this  prophec)'.  In  the  first 
place.  I  am  sure  that  the  people  of  Ohio  object  to  his  dying 
altogether;  but  if  that  event  cannot  be  prevented,  then,  in  the 
second  place,  so  long  as  the  Democratic  parly  maintains  its 
present  character  and  position  before  the  country,  I  am  sure  all 
»;ootl  men  will  object  to  his  dying  in  its  bosom,  if  die  he  must. 
He  represents  one  wing  of  the  great  Democratic  party  of  former 
da\-s,  —  the  wing  whose  leader  was  Stephen  A.  Douglass,  that 
great  statesman  who,  in  the  crisis  of  1861,  declared  that,  in  view 

^  Hon.  David  Tod,  (Jovcrnor  of  Oliio  from  1S62  to  1S64,  who  had   just   ad- 
drcsbcd  tlic  RcpubliLan  mass  meeting  at  Orwell. 


POLITICAL  ISSUES  OF  1868.  391 

of  the  Rebellion  then  beginning,  there  could  be  but  two  parties 
in  this  country,  patriots  and  traitors.  The  Governor  joined  the 
Union  party,  not  for  three  years  only,  but  for  the  war.  The 
war  in  which  he  enlisted  is  not  yet  ended.  We  are  to-day 
fighting  the  same  battles,  and  endeavoring  to  maintain  the  same 
doctrines  and  principles  which  were  in  issue  four  years  ago. 

I  had  supposed,  fellow-citizens,  that  in  the  campaign  of  this 
fall  the  Democratic  party  would  permit  the  dead  past  to  bury 
its  dead ;  that  we  should  be  permitted  to  look  forward,  and  not 
backward ;  that  they  would  find  their  issues  in  the  great  ques- 
tions of  the  day,  not  of  the  past,  but  of  the  present  and  the 
future.  I  had  supposed  Democrats  remembered  that  there  had 
been  a  war ;  that  the  Rebellion  had  been  crushed ;  that  slavery 
had  been  abolished ;  but  it  seems  from  their  speeches  and  their 
papers  that  they  do  not  remember  these  things. 

In  conducting  the  present  campaign,  it  will  not  be  profitable 
to  discuss  those  questions  upon  which  the  Democratic  party  are 
divided ;  the  only  legitimate  discussion  on  our  part  will  be  on 
those  questions  where  they  are  united,  and  where  they  antago- 
nize us. 

The  party  do  not  agree  on  any  financial  doctrine.  They 
are  not  all  free-traders,  neither  are  they  all  tariff  men.  Some 
Democrats  are  in  favor  of  the  national  banks,  and  others  are  in 
favor  of  totally  abolishing  these  banks.  Those  who  follow  the 
lead  of  Mr.  Pendleton  arc  in  favor  of  paying  the  bonds  in 
greenbacks,  and  those  who  follow  Horatio  Seymour  denounce 
the  greenback  theory  of  Pendleton  as  fraudulent  and  wicked. 
Some  of  the  leaders  are  in  favor  of  resuming  specie  payments ; 
other  leaders  oppose  this,  and  insist  upon  another  deluge  of 
greenbacks.  If  it  is  said  that  Mr.  Pendleton  secured  the  plat- 
form adopted  by  the  New  York  Convention,  it  must  be  admitted 
that  those  utterly  opposed  to  his  doctrines  secured  the  nomi- 
nation. I  therefore  affirm  here  to-day  that  the  Democratic 
party  are  not  a  unit  on  any  leading  financial  question. 

They  were  not  even  united  in  their  choice  of  a  Presidential 
candidate.  Seventeen  different  candidates  disputed  the  honor 
of  the  nomination.  Many  days  and  many  ballots  were  required 
to  make  the  selection  of  a  standard-bearer;  and  when  the 
choice  was  finally  made,  it  was  received  very  coldly  in  many 
parts  of  the  country.  The  party  were  far  from  being  satisfied 
with    Mr.    Seymour.     But,  fellow-citizens,  there  was    one  man 


.  ^-  party  were  united. 

.  Mt  measure  was  the 

.  letter.     To  that  letter 

viminally  to  Colonel  Brod- 
POLITIGAL    ISS'    .  -v'cratic   Convention  at  New 
.    -jt  as  an  aspirant  for  the  Vice- 
SPEECH  DEUVETS  «-  ■■"'I  "^l"  «l>e  boldness  charac- 
...;  '.iut  convention  that  questions  of 
'V  ..  ,-.»■  currency,  greenbacks,  or   bonds. 
.;  iaj-$(.in  with  the  one  great  question  of 
>,K.:.  '^'■^  affirmed,  was  the  question  of  the 
^^■jthem  States.     That  issue  he  placed  in 
■pELLOW-'  I  '  jiiiij;  that  it  overshadows  all  other  issues 

J.       the  aiidn.!''  '  ij^  Joclaration  on  this  subject  was  not  gen- 

years  ago.  .L.il  iK.inted.     He  not  only  declared  that  all 

myself.     I ,jjj  ^f  Congress  are  null  and  void,  but  he 

pf'''''''  ■  CISC  of  the  Democratic  party  to  overturn 

occt-  Q  him  no  injustice,  I  quote  from  his  letter. 

^^'^   I  „L_-.,' language:  — 

,.,  .'lu- way  to  restore  the  government  and  the  Constitii- 

-  .    >  'i-r  the   President  elect  to  declare  these  acts  null  and 

■''  V  iM")'  to  undo  its  usurpation  at  the  South,  disperse  the 

V—'  ^I'viTnments,  allow  the  white  people  to  reorganise  their 

.,.i;-s  Lind  elect  Senators  and  Representati(-cs.     The  Hoiwe 

,  ^,  ;.  iims  will  contain  a  majority  of  Democrats  from  the  North, 

„  ,t  .iilniit  the  Representatives  elected  by  the  white  people  of 

^_^.,-     .iiiil,  with  the  co-operation  of  the  President,  it  will  not  be 

;  i-iompel  tlie  Senate  to  submit  once  more  to  the  obligations  of 

4  .•iitpi'I  the  army  to  undo  the  work  of  Congress  in  the  South- 
_.  I  •\i,avs!  When  did  the  Democratic  party  ever  compel  the 
j,,i!\  ii>  ilo  anything  in  the  war?  Three  quarters  of  a  million  of 
;  Vim'iT^itic  rebels  in  our  front  attempted  to  compel  the  army, 
tmt  si!;nally  failed.  Thousands  of  Democrats  behind  us  under- 
i^.,.|<  to  compel  our  army  to  withdraw,  and  give  up  the  war,  but 
ihi'ii  compulsion  did  not  succeed.  In  1864  they  declared  the 
«,»■  A  failure,  and  demanded  the  withdrawal  of  the  troops  from 
till"  South.  Kut  Democrats  neither  in  the  front  nor  in  the  rear 
wi-re  ever  able  to  compel  the  army  to  do  anything,  and  it  is  too 
'  MtPheiBon's  History  of  Kcconst ruction,  p.  381. 


POLITICAL  ISSUES  OF  1868.  393 

late  in  the  day  now  for  Frank  Blair,  or  any  other  Democrat,  to 
undertake  to  compel  the  army  to  undo  the  work  accomplished 

\'  Congress  in  the  way  of  reconstruction. 
'■It  lest  I  be  charged  with  quoting  only  the  utterance  of  a 
;  -ii:  man,  lest  any  one  say  this  is  only  the  doctrine  of  Frank 
..:.iir,  and  not  of  the  Democratic  party,  I  will  say  that,  on  this 
declaration,  he  received  the  nomination  for  Vice-President,  and 
received  it  by  acclamation.  It  took  a  long  time  to  get  a  candi- 
date for  President,  but  Blair  was  chosen  on  the  first  ballot,  and 
unanimously,  because  of  this  clause  in  his  letter.  He  was 
chosen  to  represent  the  spirit  of  that  letter.  When  the  party 
came  to  the  construction  of  their  platform  of  principles,  Wade 
Hampton,  of  South  Carolina,  a  general  of  the  Rebel  army,  told 
the  Committee  on  Resolutions  that  the  South  asked  one  thing,  — 
that  the  principles  set  forth  in  Blair's  letter  should  be  made  the 
principles  of  the  party ;  and  the  Committee  on  Resolutions  re- 
ported the  declaration  which  stands  in  the  platform  as  the  utter- 
ance of  the  whole  Democratic  party,  —  that  the  Reconstruction 
Acts,  so  called,  of  Congress,  are  usurpations,  unconstitutional, 
and  revolutionary.  So,  then,  the  issue  is  made  up.  The  doc- 
trine of  Frank  Blair  and  Wade  Hampton  has  become  the  doc- 
trine of  the  great  Democratic  party.  On  that  issue  General 
Blair  declares  that  the  battle  is  to  be  fought;  that  that  issue 
overshadows  and  overrides  all  other  questions;  that  by  the 
side  of  it  all  others  are  mere  trifles.  Let  me  here  say  to  the 
Democracy,  the  Republican  party  accept  your  challenge ;  we 
are  ready  to  meet  you  on  your  own  chosen  ground,  and  fight 
the  battle  of  this  campaign. 

I  need  not  review  all  the  reconstruction  measures ;  many  of 
the  questions  are  already  settled ;  but  I  will  briefly  state,  first, 
the  grounds  on  which  both  Democrats  and  Republicans  agree, 
and  then  the  grounds  of  difference  between  them. 

All  parties  agree  that,  when  the  Rebellion  collapsed,  in  1865, 
the  whole  Confederate  establishment  fell  into  ruins;  that  all  the 
governments  of  the  eleven  Rebel  States  were  utterly  destroyed, 
and  that  there  was  no  oflficer  left,  from  governor  to  constable, 
whom  the  national  government  could  or  did  recognize.  All 
power  in  all  these  States  had  been  based  upon  the  Confeder- 
ate government,  and  when  that  exploded  all  governments  fell 
together.  To  prove  this  I  need  only  quote  Andrew  Johnson, 
after^^'ards  the  leader  of  the  Democratic  party.     He  declared. 


394  POLITICAL  ISSUES  OF  1868. 

in  ]  865>  that  all  civil  government  in  the  Rebel  States  was  over* 
turned  and  destroyed.  On  this  question,  then,  both  parties 
agree.    There  is  no  issue  here. 

But,  further,  both  parties  agree  that,  after  the  disappearance 
of  State  governments  in  the  South,  it  became  the  duty  of  the 
United  States  to  guarantee  to  those  States  lately  in  rebellion  a 
republican  form  of  government  This  was  acknowledged  to  be 
in  accordance  with  the  Conistitution.  By  the  wisdom  and  fore- 
thought of  our  fathers  this  important  provision  had  been  inserted 
in  the  Constitution,  and  here  had  at  last  arisen  a  case  for  the 
exercise  of  the  power. 

Thus  far  no  difference  of  opinion  had  arisen  between  the  two 
parties.  But  at  this  point  a  very  curious  question  arose.  It  was 
this:  ''Who  is  the  United  States?"  While  this  question  was 
before  the  country,  a  hunible  individual  from  Tennessee  stepped 
forward  and  said, "  Gentlemen,  I  am  the  United  States ;  I  will  do 
the  work."  Congress  at  the  time  was  not  in  session,  and  could 
not  contest  the  pretensions  of  this  gentleman  who  claimed  to 
be  the  United  States,  Mr.  Andrew  Johnson,  of  Tennessee.  So 
he  went  to  work  to  construct  republican  governments  for  the 
Rebel  States.  He  first  picked  out  certain  men  whom  he  ap- 
pointed governors,  putting  one  in  each  State.  These  governors 
fixed  up  their  State  Constitutions,  but  with  the  solitary  excep- 
tion of  Tennessee  they  were  never  submitted  to  the  people  at 
all.  When  Congress  met,  Mr.  Johnson  came  to  the  door  with  a 
whole  armful  of  documents,  and  said :  "  Gentlemen  of  Congress, 
here  are  some  States  I  have  been  making ;  I  .want  you  to  take 
them  in.  I  have  also,"  he  said,  "elected  eighty  men  as  represent- 
atives of  these  States,  whom  I  want  you  to  admit  as  members 
of  your  houses."  We  looked  at  Johnson,  then  at  the  repre- 
sentatives, and  then  at  the  litter  of  States  he  brought  us.  We 
looked  at  the  workman,  and  then  at  his  work,  and  said,  "  Mr. 
Johnson,  in  the  first  place,  you  are  not  the  United  States ;  and 
in  the  second  place,  if  you  were,  you  have  made  a  wretched 
botch  of  your  work."  Congress  looked  at  the  eighty  represent- 
atives who  were  asking  to  come  in,  and  they  saw  that,  with 
three  or  four  exceptions,  every  man  among  them  had  blood 
on  his  hands.  With  those  exceptions,  every  man  had  cither 
been  a  leader  in  the  Rebel  army,  or  had  assisted  in  originating 
the  Rebellion  and  in  carrying  it  on.  We  were  asked  by  the 
Democratic  party  and  by  Johnson  to  admit  these  unwashed, 


POLITICAL  ISSUES  OF  1868.  395 

unpardoned,  unhung  rebels,  whose  hands  were  still  red  with  the 
blood  of  your  children,  to  seats  in  the  national  Congress,  to 
make  laws  for  you  and  me,  and  for  our  children  to  come  after 
us.  Congress  refused  to  admit  them.  Congress  said,  "  You 
cannot  come  in  here  with  your  bloody  hands  to  control  the 
affairs  of  this  great  nation." 

The  serious  question  then  arose,  Who  has  authority  to  build 
up  republican  governments  in  these  disorganized  Rebel  States? 
On  looking  into  our  political  history,  we  found  the  question 
had  been  decided  as  long  ago  as  1842.  Chief  Justice  Taney 
then  delivered  a  decision,^  in  which  he  declared  that,  in  any 
case  where  the  validity  of  a  State  government  was  called  in 
question,  it  was  not  the  province  of  the  Supreme  Court,  or  of 
the  President,  to  decide,  but  that  it  was  the  sole  province  of  the 
law-making  power.  It  was  therefore  clearly  the  duty  of  the 
Congress  of  the  United  States,  according  to  the  Constitution, 
to  guarantee  republican  forms  of  government  to  the  Rebel 
States  of  the  South.  The  work  was  a  difficult  one.  We  felt 
this.  We  knew  that,  under  the  law  providing  for  punishing 
treason,  passed  by  the  First  Congress,  and  approved  by  Wash- 
ington, we  might  try,  convict,  and  hang  every  Rebel  in  the 
South ;  but  Congress  determined  to  do  nothing  for  vengeance. 
A  plan  was  therefore  framed  with  the  design  of  securing  jus- 
tice to  all ;  a  plan  to  make  all  men  equal  before  the  law ;  a 
plan  that  would  protect  all  in  their  rights,  and  secure  the  coun- 
try against  a  rebellion  in  the  future.  We  proposed  to  put  into 
the  Constitution  of  the  United  States  a  provision  allowing  the 
people  of  the  South  to  exercise  their  discretion  about  granting 
the  black  men  the  right  to  vote,  but  there  was  to  be  this  con- 
dition :  if  they  would  not  grant  the  right,  they  should  not  vote 
for  them.  Thus  we  proposed,  to  leave  the  question  with  them. 
It  was  proposed  to  admit  to  political  privileges  all  the  Rebels 
of  the  South,  except  those  who  had  been  leaders  in  the  Re- 
bellion. It  was  proposed  that  the  Union  debt  should  never  be 
repudiated,  and  that  the  Rebel  debt  should  never  be  paid.  It 
was  proposed  that,  when  the  States  of  the  South  should  frame 
constitutions  on  these  principles,  and  adopt  the  Fourteenth 
Amendment,  they  should  be  restored  to  all  the  advantages  of 
the  Union. 

This  plan  was  submitted  to  the  people  in  the  campaign  of  1866, 

^  In  Luther  v.  Borden  ct  al.^  7  Howard,  i. 


396  POLITICAL  ISSUES  OF  i863. 

and  it  was  approved  by  the  most  overwhelming  majorities  ever 
given  in  the  Congressional  elections.  Four  fifths  of  the  Union 
members  in  the  Fortieth  Congress  were  elected  on  that  issue. 
It  was  submitted  to  the  people  of  the  South,  and»  one  by  one, 
with  the  single  exception  of  Tennessee,  the  Rebel  States,  under 
the  lead  of  Andrew  Johnson,  and  by  the  consent  and  advice  of 
the  Democratic  party,  rejected  the  Amendment,  and  flung  it 
back  into  our  faces  with  contempt  Under  these  circumstances 
we  were  compelled  to  decide,  either  to  surrender  the  whole 
scheme,  or  to  take  severer  measures.  Congress  then  deter- 
mined to  take  hold  of  those  States  with  the  strong  arm  of  mili- 
tary power,  to  keep  the  peace,  and  to  redress  the  wrongs  and 
injuries  of  the  Union  people  of  the  South,  until  the  States 
would  come  in  on  the  basis  of  law.  In  rebuilding  what  had 
been  destroyed,  we  found  it  necessary  to  dig  deeper.  The 
burned  and  charred  timbers  and  broken  foundations  of  the  old 
Rebel  States  were  not  fit  material  to  work  into  the  great  temple 
of  liberty.  We  dug  down  to  find  the  solid  rock  of  loyalty,  and 
when  we  found  it  we  discovered  that  it  was  variegated.  There 
was  black  as  well  as  white  marble. 

We  built  at  last  upon  the  sure  foundation  of  loyalty.  We 
had  found  that,  whatever  might  be  the  color  of  a  man's  skin,  if 
he  was  a  friend  of  the  government,  and  not  excluded  by  acts 
of  treason,  he  should  be  made  a  part  of  the  great  political 
structure.  On  that  broad  basis  Congress  reconstructed  the 
South.  Eight  of  the  States  have  been  admitted  to  representa- 
tion in  Congress,  after  their  constitutions  had  been  framed  and 
submitted  to  the  people.  Eight  States  have  adopted  the  Four- 
teenth Amendment.  Three  States  have  rejected  the  terms ;  but 
the  Amendment  has  been  fairly  adopted.  Even  President  John- 
son has  been  compelled  to  announce  that  it  is  a  part  of  the  Con- 
stitution of  the  United  States.  The  Chief  Justice  has  so  declared. 
So  we  come  back  to  you  now,  fellow-citizens,  to  inform  you 
that  the  work  with  which  you  charged  us  two  years  ago  has 
been  completed,  except  in  the  States  of  Virginia,  Mississippi, 
and  Texas.  It  is  a  good  thing  when  men  respect  laws  and 
constitutions ;  but  they  do  not  always  do  so.  When  they  fail 
from  better  motives,  there  is  a  little  piece  of  steel  called  a  bay- 
onet, which  never  fails  to  inspire  respect,  —  more  respect  with 
some  men  than  law.  In  these  three  States  we  have  left  the 
bayonet. 


POLITICAL  ISSUES  OF  1868.  397 

[At  this  point  in  the  speech,  a  venerable  Democrat  in  the  centre  of 
the  audience,  who  had  been  listening  attentively,  asked  the  speaker  if  he 
proposed  to  adopt  constitutional  amendments  by  the  bayonet.] 

We  propose  this,  my  friend.  If  you  persist  in  forming  Ku- 
Klux  Klans  in  the  South  to  murder  Union  men,  white  or  black, 
we  propose  to  use  the  bayonet.  If  you  will  not  learn  to  respect 
the  law  through  lessons  of  a  milder  nature,  you  must  be  in- 
structed by  cold  steel.  We  propose  to  see  the  rights,  liberties, 
and  lives  of  Union  men,  white  and  black,  protected.  This  has 
been  the  object  of  Congressional  reconstruction  from  the  be- 
ginning to  the  end. 

There  is  one  other  act  that  should  be  mentioned.  We  said 
the  Union  debt  should  never  be  repudiated. 

Now,  the  great  issue  with  the  Democratic  party  is  this :  Shall 
all  this  work  be  undone?  Frank  P.  Blair  asks  the  whole  country 
to  face  about  to  the  rear,  and  plunge  again  into  the  abyss  of 
war  from  which  we  have  just  been  rescued.  On  the  other  hand, 
General  Grant,  the  great  leader  of  the  Republican  party,  says, 
"Let  us  have  peace."  The  face  of  the  Democratic  party  is 
turned  to  the  rear,  but  that  of  the  Union  party  to  the  front, 
and  its  nature  is  to  press  forward.  It  is  for  you  to  say,  fellow- 
citizens,  in  which  direction  the  country  shall  move. 

I  am  no  alarmist ;  I  do  not  desire  to  say  a  word  to  misrepre- 
sent or  exaggerate  the  situation ;  but  I  am  compelled  to  believe 
that  the  Democratic  platform  and  leaders  mean  war.  Can  any 
one  believe  that  the  loyal  white  men  in  the  South  will  tamely 
submit  to  have  all  this  work  overturned?  Can  any  one  believe 
that  the  three  millions  of  black  men  lately  endowed  with  politi- 
cal rights  will  tamely  submit  to  have  those  rights  taken  away 
from  them,  and  be  crushed  again?  Can  any  man  believe  that 
the  great  Republican  party  in  the  North,  that  have  sacrificed  so 
much,  will  tamely  submit  to  see  all  that  the  war  has  accom- 
plished overturned  and  destroyed?  I  affirm  it  as  my  convic- 
tion, that,  if  the  Democratic  party  succeed  in  the  election  of  a 
President  and  Vice-President,  all  we  have  gained  by  the  war 
will  be  lost.  The  three  hundred  thousand  men  who  have  died 
in  the  struggle  will  have  died  in  vain.  The  three  hundred  thou- 
sand who  were  crippled  and  maimed  in  the  war  will  have  suf- 
fered in  vain.  All  will  be  in  vain,  all  will  be  lost,  if  the  work 
we  have  done  is  overturned.  But  elect  General  Grant,  and  four 
years  more  will  settle  all  these  questions,  and  secure  an  hon- 


398  POLITICAL  ISSUES  OF  1868. 

orable  peace.  I  refuse  to  believe  that  the  people  of  this  great 
land  desire  to  reopen  the  war.  I  know  I  can  speak  for  the  sol- 
diers of  the  republic.  We  have  seen  blood  enough.  Not  a 
single  man  among  them  desires  to  re-enter  the  strife.  It  is 
only  the  Democratic  party,  —  that  opposed  the  war,  that  re- 
sisted every  effort  to  raise  men  and  money,  that  denounced 
us  as  usurpers  and  Constitution-breakers, —  it  is  only  this  Dem- 
ocratic party,  aided  by  the  Rebels  of  the  South,  who  now  pro- 
pose to  renew  the  war.  Such  men  as  Wade  Hampton,  of  South 
Carolina,  and  General  Forrest,  of  Memphis,  leading  members  of 
the  New  York  Convention,  are  telling  the  people  in  the  South 
that  there  is  now  a  chance  to  save  at  the  ballot-box  what  they 
lost  in  the  field.  This  is  the  only  issue  in  which  the  Rebels  are 
interested.  I  cannot  believe,  when  the  people  of  this  country 
understand  the  real  facts,  that  they  will  permit  such  a  scheme 
to  be  successful. 

All  through  this  Northern  country,  the  Democratic  party  are 
careful  to  avoid  the  main  issue  of  the  campaign.  They  are 
calling  the  attention  of  the  people  to  questions  of  finance. 
They  arc  charging  the  Republican  party  with  reckless  extrav- 
agance and  unnecessary  expenditure  of  the  public  treasure, 
and  attempt  by  this  means  to  divert  your  attention  from  the 
real  issues  and  purposes  of  the  party  to  these  incidental  side 
issues. 

I  will  now,  fcUow-citizcns,  for  a  few  moments,  look  into  the 
questions  that  are  treated  with  so  much  concern  and  gravity  by 
Democratic  speakers  and  presses.  In  order  that  I  may  exhibit 
the  character  of  the  charges  which  that  party  makes  against  us, 
I  will  read  a  sentence  from  the  speech  of  Horatio  Seymour  at 
Cooper  Institute,  in  New  York,  a  few  days  before  he  was  nomi- 
nated for  President.  He  says:  "  Since  the  war  closed,  in  1865, 
the  government  has  spent,  in  addition  to  payments  on  principal 
and  interest,  more  than  one  thousand  millions  of  dollars.  Of  this 
sum,  nearly  eight  hundred  millions  has  been  expended  on  the 
army  and  navy,  for  military  purposes,  and  all  this  expenditure 
was  made  in  time  of  peace."  Now,  there  is  nothing  more  sur- 
prising than  the  fact  that  a  man  occupying  the  responsible  and 
respectable  position  that  Governor  Seymour  is  supposed  to  oc- 
cupy should  make  such  a  statement  as  this.  He  would  have  you 
believe  that  the  Republican  party  has  expended  $800,000,000 
on  the  army  and  navy  in  a  time  of  profound  peace,  and  within 


POLITICAL   ISSUES  OF  1868.  399 

a  period  of  three  years.  I  ask  your  careful  and  thoughtful 
attention  to  this  astonishing  statement.  Witness  how  a  plain 
tale  shall  put  him  down. 

When  the  war  closed  with  the  surrender  of  Lee,  in  April, 
1865,  there  were  one  million  men  on  the  muster-rolls  of  the 
army ;  there  were  fifty  thousand  sailors  and  nearly  five  hun- 
dred vessels  in  the  navy.  There  was  due  every  soldier  and 
sailor  at  that  time  from  one  to  six  months'  pay,  and  to  nearly 
every  soldier  there  was  due  the  bounty  which  had  been  prom- 
ised him  at  the  date  of  his  enlistment,  but  which  was  not  to  be 
paid  until  he  was  mustered  out  of  the  service.  Within  one 
hundred  and  seventy-four  days  after  the  last  victory  of  General 
Grant  over  the  Rebel  army,  there  was  paid  out  of  the  national 
treasury  $625,000,000  to  the  army  and  navy,  in  the  way  of 
back  pay  and  bounty.  Every  man  of  ordinary  intelligence 
must  readily  see  that  every  dollar  of  this  money  was  a  part  of 
the  expenses  of  the  war,  and  was  not,  as  Governor  Seymour 
asserts,  part  of  the  expense  of  the  peace  establishment.  Gov- 
ernor Seymour  takes  this  $625,000,000,  adds  to  it  all  the  money 
expended  on  the  army  and  navy  since,  and,  gravely  setting  it 
all  down  to  the  credit  of  the  peace  establishment,  holds  it  up  as 
an  exhibition  of  the  extravagance  of  the  Republican  party !  I 
appeal  to  you,  fellow-citizens,  to  say  whether  it  is  fair  or  honor- 
able to  make  such  a  misrepresentation.  There  is  a  short  and 
very  expressive  Saxon  word,  which  I  might  very  properly  apply 
to  the  statement,  but  I  forbear  to  use  it.  I  will  only  say  that 
the  statement  is  utterly  untrue,  and  without  the  shadow  of  a 
foundation. 

Again,. it  is  charged  by  the  leaders  of  the  Democratic  party 
that  the  expenditures  of  Republican  administration  are  enor- 
mous, when  compared  with  the  expenditures  of  Democratic 
administration.  They  tell  us  the  expenses  of  the  government 
under  Buchanan's  administration  amounted  to  only  $90,000,000 
per  annum,  while  our  annual  expenditures  now  reach  more  than 
$300,000,000.  Permit  mc  here,  fellow-citizens,  to  state  briefly 
the  history  of  our  expenditures. 

During  the  fiscal  year  ending  June  30,  1865,  the  expenses  of 
the  government  amounted  to  $1,290,000,000;  during  the  fiscal 
year  ending  June  30,  1866,  we  reduced  theni  to  $540,000,000, 
less  than  one  half  the  amount  of  the  preceding  year;  during 
the  fiscal  year  ending  June  30,  1867,  they  had  been  reduced  to 


«■ 


400  POLITICAL  ISSUES  OF  1868. 

$420,0CX^,0CX^,  and  during  the  fiscal  year  which  closed  on  the 
30th  of  June  last,  our  total  expenses  amounted  to  $371,000,000. 
Thus  our  expenses  in  1866  were  only  forty-two  per  cent,  in 
1867  only  thirty-two  per  cent,  and  in  1868  only  twenty-five  per 
cent  of  what  they  were  in  1865.  During  this  year,  we  have 
every  reason  to  believe  a  still  further  reduction  will  be  reached. 

Now,  fellow-citizens,  I  desire  to  call  your  attention  to  the  de- 
tails of  the  expenditures  of  the  last  fiscal  year.  There  was  paid 
into  the  Federal  Treasury  during  that  year  $406,000,000.  The 
people  of  the  United  States  placed  in  the  hands  of  the  govern- 
ment that  sum ;  and  for  its  proper  disposition  and  economical 
disbursement  that  government  is  responsible  to  them.  As  your 
representative  in  the  Congress  of  the  United  States,  I  am  here 
to-day  to  tell  you  what  was  done  with  your  money.  You  have 
the  right  to  require  of  me  a  full  and  fair  statement,  as  far  as  I 
am  able  to  give  it. 

One  hundred  and  sixty-three  and  a  half  millions  of  dollars 
was  received  from  customs,  —  from  duties  on  imported  goods; 
$193,000,000  from  the  internal  revenue;  $47,000,000  from  mis- 
cellaneous sources,  such  as  the  sale  of  war  material ;  nearly 
$3,000,000  from  the  sale  of  public  lands  and  the  direct  tax  on 
lands.  Now,  what  was  done  with  this  money?  You,  the  people, 
have  a  right  to  ask.  It  would  not  be  fair  and  just  to  charge  all 
the  expenses  arising  out  of  the  war  to  the  ordinary  expenses  of 
the  government.  I  shall,  therefore,  classify  the  expenses  into 
extraordinary,  or  those  growing  out  of  the  war,  and  ordinary, 
or  those  required  to  maintain  the  government  in  time  of  peace. 
The  first  of  the  extraordinary  expenses  was  interest  on  the  pub- 
lic debt,  amounting  in  all  to  $141,500,000.  A  large  amount 
of  this  was  the  interest  on  the  compound-interest  notes  becom- 
ing due,  and  which,  once  paid,  cannot  occur  again.  Next,  we 
paid  in  the  way  of  pensions  to  disabled  soldiers  and  to  widows 
and  orphans  of  dead  soldiers,  $23,500,000.  These  are  other 
items:  bounties  due  to  soldiers  during  the  war  and  not  paid 
before,  $38,000,000;  Freedmen's  Bureau,  $3,250,000;  recon- 
struction expenses,  $1,750,000;  reimbursing  States  for  war  ex- 
penses, $10,250,000;  for  property  lost  and  destroyed  through 
military  operations,  $5,000,000;  subsistence  for  starving  Indians 
on  the  frontier,  $1,000,000;  for  purchase  and  construction  of 
national  cemeteries,  $750,000;  for  commutation  to  persons 
losing  horses  in  the  service,  one  sixth  of  a  million ;  making  a 


POLITICAL  ISSUES  OF  1868.  401 

total  over  and  above  the  ordinary  expenses  of  the  government, 
of  $225,000,000. 

Now,  when  the  Democratic  party  accuse  us  of  extravagance, 
let  them  say  whether  they  would  have  refused  to  make  any  of 
these  expenditures.  Let  them  say  whether  they  would  have  re- 
fused to  pay  the  debts  due  the  public  creditors  of  the  govern- 
ment. Would  they  have  refused  to  pay  the  pensions  promised 
the  soldier  who  had  .been  crippled  and  disabled  for  life  in  the 
service  of  his  country?  Would  they  have  refused  the  poor 
pittance  allowed  his  impoverished  widow  or  orphan?  Would 
they  have  refused  food  to  the  starving  poor  of  the  South,  whites 
and  blacks?  Would  they  have  opposed  appropriating  money 
for  the  purpose  of  picking  up  the  scattered  bones  of  our  brave 
boys  who  had  fallen  in  the  South,  and  depositing  them  in  neat, 
respectable  cemeteries  ?  I  call  upon  them  to  say  whether  they 
would  have  refused  any  of  these  expenditures. 

The  expenditures  of  the  government,  during  the  last  fiscal 
year,  not  growing  out  of  the  war,  amounted  to  $146,000,000, 
and  probably  $10,000,000  of  this  sum  was  expended  in  sup- 
.pressing  Indian  hostilities  in  the  West  This  would  reduce 
the  strictly  ordinary  expenses  to  $136,000,000.  All  this,  how- 
ever, was  paid  in  paper,  at  a  discount  of  from  thirty  to  forty 
per  cent,  while  the  expenditures  under  Buchanan,  to  which  the 
Democratic  leaders  so  often  allude  in  comparison  with  Repub- 
lican expenditures,  were  all  in  gold.  Reduce  our  ordinary 
expenditures  of  last  year  to  gold,  and  they  would  not  exceed 
$100,000,000.  But  it  must  also  be  taken  into  consideration 
that  when  Buchanan  was  President  we  had  less  than  thirty 
millions  of  people;  now  we  have  nearly  forty  millions.  We 
had  then  only  thirty-four  States;  now  we  have  thirty-eight. 
The  expenses  of  a  country  must  always  increase  in  proportion 
to  the  increase  of  population  and  of  wealth.  Considering  the 
increase  in  the  number  of  States,  in  their  population  and  wealth, 
since  the  days  of  President  Buchanan,  I  do  not  hesitate  to  affirm 
that  the  expenditures  of  the  last  fiscal  year  were  more  economi- 
cal than  they  were  under  the  last  Democratic  administration. 

But  they  talk  of  the  public  debt.  No  less  a  person  than  Rufus 
P.  Ranney,  of  Cleveland,  in  a  speech  at  Painesville  last  Friday, 
charged  the  Republican  party  with  having  increased  the  public 
debt  one  hundred  millions  since  the  war,  and  I  find  the  same 
statement  going  the  rounds  of  the  Democratic  papers  of  the 

VOL.  I.  26 


402  POLITICAL  ISSUES   OF  1868. 

country.  Let  me  here  make  a  statement  from  the  record,  —  an 
official  statement  of  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury.  On  the 
30th  of  June,  1866,  the  public  debt  amounted  to  $2,783,000,000; 
on  the  30th  of  Jun^  1868,  it  amounted  to  $2,510,000,000,  show- 
ing a  decrease  in  two  years  of  $273,000,000.  During  the  last 
year  there  was  a  surplus  of  $34,000,000  to  apply  on  the  princi- 
pal of  the  public  debt.  That  disposes  of  the  charge  that  the 
Republican  party  have  increased  the  debt. 

Again,  the  Democratic  party  complain  of  the  heavy  taxation 
imposed  on  the  country  by  Congress.      Fellow-citizens,  while 
the  war  was  in  progress  there  were  three  words  in  my  political 
creed.      They  were   all   verbs   implying   action.      They   were 
"  tax,"  "  fight,'*  and  "  emancipate.*'     Tax  the  people  to  support 
the  army  and  prosecute  the  war ;   fight  the  Rebels  to  crush  the 
Rebellion ;  emancipate  the  slaves,  and  realize  the  glorious  doc- 
trines of  the  Declaration  of  Independence.    Congress  did  tax  the 
people :  it  laid  heavy  burdens  upon  them.     But  a  brave,  noble, 
and  generous  people  were  willing  to  be  taxed.     They  were  will- 
ing to  bear  the  burdens  and  endure  the  hardships  that  the  country 
might  live.     During  the  war  scarcely  anything  escaped  taxation. 
But  since  the  war  closed,  the  Republican  party  have  reduced 
taxation  as  rapidly  as    possible,  or  as  rapidly  as  was  safe  for 
the  country.     In   1866  taxation    was  reduced    $60,000,000;   in 
1867,  $40,000,000   more;   and  by  the  two  acts  of  February  3, 
and  March  31,  Congress  at  its  last  session  reduced  the  taxation 
$67,000,000  more ;  making  a  total  reduction  of  taxation  during 
the  past  two  years  of  $1 67, ocx),ooo.     The  Democrats,  however, 
still  insist  that  you  are  terribly  burdened  with  taxation.     I  have 
to-day  received  an  official  statement  from  the  Internal  Revenue 
Collector  of  the  Nineteenth  Ohio  District,  showing  how  much 
tax  has  been  paid  by  the  people  of  this  district  each  year  un- 
der the  internal  revenue  laws.     I  will  state  the  amount.     Dur- 
ing the  fiscal  year  ending  June  30,  1866.  they  paid   $587,000; 
but  so  greatly  have  the  taxes  been  reduced  that  in   1867  they 
paid  but  $382,000;   in   1868,  they  paid  but  $201,000;    and   by 
the  reductions  made  during  the  last  session  of  Congress,  the 
internal  revenue  of  this  district  for  the  next  year  will  not  ex- 
ceed $150,000.     There  are  nearly  one  hundred  and  fifty  thou- 
sand people  in  this  Congressional  district.     Your  internal  reve- 
nue tax  will  not  average  more  than  one  dollar  per  head.     Now, 
fellow-citizens,  I   am    not  afraid  that  the  loyal  people  of  the 


POLITICAL   ISSUES   OF  1868. 


403 


Nineteenth  District  will  consider  this  too  great  a  price  to  pay 
for  their  country  and  its  institutions. 

Again,  the  Democratic  party  proclaim  in  their  platform  the 
doctrine  of  equal  taxation  of  all  property  according  to  its  true 
valuation.  This  proposition  sounds  well,  but  it  is  utterly  delu- 
sive. Consider  it  for  a  moment.  Suppose  all  the  real  and  per- 
sonal property  in  this  State  were  to  be  assessed  according  to  its 
value  in  the  market,  and  taxed  at  a  fixed  rate  per  cent;  farms 
to  be  taxed  at  the  same  rate  as  manufactured  articles,  wheat  at 
the  same  rate  as  whiskey,  potatoes  at  the  same  rate  as  tobac- 
co, billiard-tables  and  wagons,  billiard-cues  and  hoes,  to  be  put 
on  an  equality,  —  all  articles  of  luxury,  in  a  word,  to  be  taxed 
no  more  than  articles  of  every-day  necessity.  Who  will  'sup- 
pose  for  a  moment  that  such  a  system  can  be  acceptable  to  a 
free  and  intelligent  people?  No  party  has  ever  before  pro- 
posed such  a  tax  system,  and  I  think  no  party  will  ever  dare 
to  carry  out  such  doctrines  in  practice.  It  has  long  been  an 
established  principle  with  financiers  in  this  country  to  lay  the 
chief  burdens  of  taxation  on  articles  of  luxury,  and  relieve 
the  necessaries  of  life. 

But  the  resolution  in  th«  Democratic  platform  to  which  I 
allude  was  evidently  designed  to  reach  the  bonds  and  the  bond- 
holders. Its  authors  intend  by  this  resolution  to  declare  them- 
selves the  friends  of  the  people  as  against  the  bondholders,  and 
demand  that  all  bonds  shall  be  subject  to  equal  taxation,  by 
State  and  national  authority,  with  other  property. 

Now,  fellow-citizens,  I  do  not  hesitate  to  say  that  every  intel- 
ligent Democrat  knows  that  this  part  of  the  scheme  which 
proposes  taxation  of  the  bonds  by  State  authority  is  utterly 
impracticable.  Every  intelligent  Democrat  knows  that  the 
Constitution  of  the  United  States  forbids  such  taxation.  It  has 
been  eight  times  decided  by  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United 
States  that  a  State  has  no  power  to  tax  the  securities  of  the 
United  States.  It  was  so  decided  in  1819  by  Chief  Justice  Mar- 
shall. It  was  several  times  so  decided  by  Chief  Justice  Taney. 
It  has  been  the  almost  unanimous  opinion  of  the  Supreme  Court 
for  the  last  half-century;  and  within  the  last  four  years  it  has 
been  decided,  not  only  that  the  State  has  no  power  to  tax 
bonds  of  the  United  States,  but  that  Congress  cannot,  by  legis- 
lation, confer  that  right  upon  the  States.  If  the  Democratic 
party  are  in   earnest  when   they  declare  in  favor  of  taxing  the 


404  POLITICAL  ISSUES  OF  1868. 

bonds  by  State  authority,  why  did  not  the  Ohio  legislature  pass 
such  a  law  during  their  late  session?  It  was,  fellow-citizens, 
for  the  simple  reason  that  they  knew  such  a  law  would  be  null 
and  void.  The  truth  is,  they  have  put  this  plank  into  their 
platform  to  make  capital  with  the  people.  They  suggest  a 
falsehood  which  they  dare  not  openly  advocate. 

But  I  may  be  asked,  Why  may  not  Congress  tax  the  bonds 
of  the  United  States?     Let  us  examine  that  question. 

In  the  first  place,  there  are  $425,ooo,cxx)  of  bonds  that  form 
the  basis  of  the  capital  of  the  national  banks.  The  shares  of 
these  banks  are  taxed,  both  by  State  and  national  authority. 
The  total  amount  of  taxes  thus  levied  during  the  past  year 
amounted  to  $9,000,000  under  State  laws,  and  to  $9,000,000 
more  under  Federal  laws.  Thus  the  national  banks  paid 
$18,000,000  taxes,  —  more  than  four  per  cent  on  the  capital  in- 
vested. What  other  species  of  property  bears  so  large  a  share 
of  the  public  burden?  Would  our  agricultural  and  manufac- 
turing interests  quietly  submit  to  that  per  cent  of  taxation?  In 
the  next  place,  there  are  at  least  $600,000,000  of  our  bonds  now 
held  in  Europe.  Are  we  ready  to  levy  taxes  on  foreigners? 
Are  we  ready  to  assume  the  right  to  tax  the  subjects  of  France, 
of  Great  Britain,  and  of  Germany?  Are  we  ready  to  raise  all 
the  questions  of  international  law  likely  to  arise  from  such  a 
policy?  Are  we  ready  to  involve  ourselves  in  a  European  war 
in  consequence  of  such  a  course?  If  we  are  not,  wc  should 
pause  before  wc  enter  upon  such  a  sweeping  policy  as  that  in- 
dicated in  the  Democratic  platform.  Again,  $150,000,000  of 
the  bonds  are  held  by  the  savings  banks  of  the  country  as  the 
best  and  safest  method  of  securing  their  funds.  These  savings 
banks,  as  you  are  aware,  are  the  depositories  of  the  small  means 
of  laboring  men,  in  sums  ranging  from  fifty  to  five  hundred 
dollars.  Is  it  wise  statesmanship,  nay,  is  it  just,  to  levy  a  tax 
on  the  earnings  of  this  class  of  our  community?  Once  more, 
$175,000,000  of  our  bonds  are  held  by  the  fire  and  life  insur- 
ance companies  of  the  country.  Is  it  desirable  to  levy  a  heavy 
tax  on  these  institutions,  every  dollar  of  which  will  be  charged 
to  the  people  whose  lives  and  property  are  insured  against 
disaster?  Not  less  than  $75,000,000  of  bonds  are  held  as 
endowment  funds  by  our  colleges  and  institutions  of  learning, 
and  by  benevolent  institutions;  and  it  lias  always  been  the 
policy  of  both  the  State  and  national  governments  to  make  the 


POLITICAL  ISSUES  OF  1868.  405 

taxation  of  such  institutions  as  light  as  possible.  A  large 
amount  of  the  bonds  are  held  by  guardians  and  trustees  for 
orphans  and  minor  children. 

This  exhibit  shows  that  nearly  three  fourths  of  the  bonds  are 
either  beyond  the  reach  of  legitimate  taxation,  or  are  so  invested 
as  to  make  a  heavy  and  exceptional  taxation  impolitic. 

Who  hold  the  remainder  of  the  bonds  ?  There  seems  to  be 
a  general  impression  that  a  few  capitalists  of  this  country  hold 
the  bonds.  The  Democratic  press  and  speakers  talk  about 
the  **  bloated  bondholders,"  the  "  aristocratic  bondholders,"  etc. 
From  all  I  have  been  able  to  gather  on  this  subject,  I  am  satis- 
fied that  comparatively  few  of  the  bonds  are  held  by  capitalists. 
I  have  in  my  possession  a  full  list  of  those  persons  who  hold 
bonds  in  two  great  cities  of  the  West,  —  Chicago  and  Cincinnati, 
—  and  I  observe  but  few  capitalists  among  them.  Such  men 
can  make  better  use  of  their  money.  They  invest  in  active, 
speculative  enterprises.  The  individual  bondholders  are  men 
of  smaller  means,  —  those  who  have  not  quite  enough  capital  to 
go  into  business,  but  who  have  a  little  money  that  they  wish 
to  invest  for  future  use,  and  who  put  it  in  bonds  to  save  interest. 
From  the  records  of  the  Treasurer's  Office  in  Washington  I  have 
obtained  a  statement  of  the  number  of  the  different  denomina- 
tions of  bonds  now  in  existence,  and  I  find  that  seventy  per 
cent  of  all  the  bonds  are  of  the  denomination  of  $1,000  or  less; 
only  thirty  per  cent  are  of  denominations  of  over  $1,000,  and 
these  large  bonds  are  mostly  held  by  the  banks.  Of  those  held 
by  individuals,  more  than  seventy  per  cent  —  probably  eighty 
per  cent — are  in  small  denominations. 

But,  all  these  considerations  aside,  what  will  be  gained  by  an 
exceptional  taxation  of  the  bonds?  Suppose  the  Cobb  resolu- 
tion ^  had  become  a  law,  and  we  had  levied  a  tax  equal  to  one 
per  cent  on  the  interest  of  the  bonds.  In  the  first  place,  this 
law  would  be  a  plain  act  of  repudiation.  It  would  reduce  six 
per  cent  bonds  to  five  per  cent  bonds.  A  five  per  cent  bond 
is  worth  but  82^  per  cent  as  much  as  a  six  per  cent  bond. 
Therefore,  by  taxing  the  interest  one  cent  on  each  dollar  of  the 
principal,  we  reduce  the  value  of  the  property  in  the  hands  of 
the  holder  16^  per  cent.  By  taxing  one  cent  on  the  dollar,  it  is 
said  we  save  to  the  treasury  $13,000,000  annually.  But  if  that 
taxation  should  depreciate  the  market  value  of  the  bonds  only 

1  See  antgy  pp.  327-355. 


4o6  POLITICAL   ISSUES  OF  1868. 

one  cent  on  the  dollar,  it  would  take  away  from  the  holders 
$2 1 ,ocx),ocx) ;  that  is,  in  putting  $13,000,000  into  the  treasury, 
it  would  take  $21,000,000  out  of  the  pockets  of  the  people. 

Now,  fellow-citizens,  in  opposition  to  all  this  wretched  trickery 
in  finance,  I  turn  with  pride  and  satisfaction  to  the  noble  declara- 
tion of  the  Chicago  Convention,  that  the  best  method  of  lighten- 
ing the  burdens  of  taxation  is  to  improve  our  credit,  so  that 
capitalists  will  seek  to  lend  us  money  at  a  lower  rate  of  inter- 
est. The  average  rate  of  interest  throughout  Europe  is  not 
more  than  three  per  cent.  We  are  paying  six  per  cent  in  gold 
for  all  the  money  that  foreigners  have  loaned  us.  They  buy 
our  bonds  at  seventy  cents  on  the  dollar,  and  we  pay  them  six 
cents  on  each  seventy  cents  they  loan  us.  We  pay  them  five 
and  a  half  per  cent  more  than  they  obtain  from  their  European 
customers.  This  additional  sum  is  not  interest,  it  is  insurance. 
It  is  the  guaranty  which  we  pay  them  against  their  being  cheated 
by  repudiation.  Every  time  we  pay  a  million  of  dollars  for  in- 
terest, we  pay  more  than  a  million  as  security  to  these  people 
that  we  will  not  cheat  them.  If  our  credit  was  perfectly  good,  all 
this  additional  price  for  security  would  be  saved  to  the  treasury. 
Suppose,  too,  our  credit  was  as  good  as  a  nation  as  that  of  Mas- 
sachusetts is  as  a  State.  That  little  State,  through  all  the  darkest 
days  of  the  war,  kept  her  financial  matters  in  such  a  condition 
that,  when  other  States  were  paying  their  interest  in  paper,  she 
paid  her  creditors,  not  only  according  to  the  letter,  but  the  spirit 
of  her  contract.  And  now  witness  the  result.  She  negotiated  a 
sterling  loan  in  London,  a  few  months  ago,  at  so  great  a  pre- 
mium that  the  interest  amounted  to  but  little  over  three  per 
cent.  Her  ?iWQ.  per  cent  bonds  are  to-day  worth  twenty-one 
cents  on  the  dollar  more  than  the  five  per  cent  gold-bearing 
bonds  of  the  United  States.  These  things  can  be  explained 
only  on  the  ground  that,  in  the  State  of  Massachusetts,  there 
are  not  enough  Democrats  to  get  up  a  respectable  effort  at  repu- 
diation. Could  we  to-day  fund  our  whole  debt  on  the  credit  of 
Massachusetts,  we  could  save  four  hundred  millions  of  dollars 
more  than  by  funding  it  on  our  own  credit.  It  has  been  the 
policy  of  the  Republican  party  to  fund  the  debt  at  a  lower  rate 
of  interest.  The  funding  bill  passed  by  Congress  about  the 
close  of  its  last  session  proposes  to  obtain  loans  at  four  and  a 
half  per  cent.  President  Johnson  refused  his  signature  to  the 
bill,  but  a  similar  one  will   be  passed  at  the   next  session  of 


POLITICAL  ISSUES   OF  1868.  407 

Congress,  Unless  the  credit  of  the  country  is  destroyed  by  the 
success  of  the  Democratic  party  or  the  folly  of  our  own  party, 
we  may  expect  to  reduce  the  whole  amount  of  interest  on  our 
public  debt  at  least  one  third. 

Thus,  fellow-citizens,  may  we  illustrate  the  old  adage,  that 
honesty  is  the  best  policy.  For  myself,  I  have  long  since  chosen 
my  course.  I  prize  highly  the  great  confidence  and  support  the 
people  of  the  Nineteenth  District  have  given  me.  These  are  the 
people  who  so  long  sustained  Joshua  R.  Giddings  in  his  struggle 
for  the  liberty  of  all  the  people.  They  will  not  now,  I  believe, 
be  willing  to  lower  the  high  standard  of  morality  that  has  ever 
characterized  them,  and  become  rcpudiators  of  the  national  ob- 
ligations. But  if  they  do,  I  should  consider  myself  dishonored 
by  accepting  or  continuing  to  hold  office  on  any  such  terms. 
Let  us  maintain  the  good  name  and  honor  of  the  nation.  Its 
life  was  saved  by  the  valor  of  our  army  and  the  fidelity  of  our 
people.  Let  us  maintain  its  good  name  by  keeping  our  engage- 
merits  with  honesty  and  promptness.  In  a  few  years  another 
generation  will  be  here  with  its  seventy-five  millions  of  people, 
and  its  sixty  billions  of  wealth.  Our  population  is  increasing 
at  the  rate  of  more  than  three  per  cent  per  annum,  while  our 
wealth  increases  at  the  rate  of  ten  per  cent  per  annum.  Twenty 
years  from  now  the  debt  will  be  a  light  burden  to  a  great,  and 
powerful,  and  wealthy  nation ;  and  our  children  will  pay  the  last 
bond  with  the  same  affectionate  reverence  that  they  will  pay 
the  last  pension  of  the  last  survivor  of  the  great  war  for  the 
Union. 


THE   REDUCTION   OF   THE   ARMY. 

SPEECH    DELIVERED    IN    THE    HOUSE    OF    REPRESENTATIVES, 

February  9,  1869. 


In  the  Fortieth  Congress,  Mr.  Garfield  held  the  chairmanship  of  the 
Committee  on  Military  Affairs,  On  the  9th  of  July,  1868,  he  reported 
from  that  committee  a  bill  to  reduce  and  fix  the  military  peace  establish- 
ment, which  was  debated  from  time  to  time,  but  on  which  no  final  action 
was  had.  At  the  next  session  he  said,  "  It  was  a  well  prepared,  well  con- 
sidered bill,  but  it  did  not  seem  to  meet  at  all  the  views  of  some  mem- 
bers of  the  House,  and  it  was  therefore  overloaded  with  amendments  of 
such  a  character  that  finally  the  House  was  entirely  unwilling  to  act  upon  it 
in  its  amended  condition.  Hence,"  he  continued,  "  following  the  lead  of 
others  who  desired  to  cut  the  army  to  pieces  rather  than  to  make  what 
seems  to  me  to  be  a  reasonable  reduction,  nothing  was  done  last  session." 
February  5, 1869,  he  obtained  permission  of  the  House  to  report  from  his 
committee  an  amendment  to  the  Army  Appropriation  Bill,  then  pending. 
The  next  day  he  reported  the  amendment,  which  was  in  substance  his 
bill  of  the  previous  session.  On  the  9th  of  the  same  month,  the  House 
'  being  in  Committee  of  tlie  Whole  on  the  Army  Appropriation  Bill,  he 
iliscussed  the  subject  of  army  reduction  and  organization  in  the  speech 
following.  On  the  26th  of  February,  he  laid  before  the  House  the  testi- 
mony of  army  officers,  to  which  he  several  times  refers  in  his  speech, 
accompanied  by  a  brief  report. 

The  main  features  of  the  bill  of  1868,  and  the  amendment  of  1869, 
can  be  gathered  from  Mr.  Garfield's  speech.  As  a  whole,  his  plan  failed 
to  pass ;  but  the  act  making  appropriations  for  the  army  for  the  fiscal 
year  ending  June  30,  1870,  approved  March  3,  1869,  contained  these 
provisions  :  — 

"  That  there  shall  be  no  new  commissions,  no  promotions,  and  no  en- 
Hstments  in  any  infantry  regiment  until  the  total  number  of  infantry  regi- 
ments is  reduced  to  twenty-five ;  and  the  Secretary  of  War  is  hereby 
directed  to  co^nsolidate  the  infantry  regiments  as  rapidly  as  the  require- 
ments of  the  public  service  and  the  reduction  of  the  number  of  officers 


THE  REDUCTION  OF  THE  ARMY.  409 

wiD  permit  ....  That  no  appointments  of  Brigadier-Generals  shall  be 
made  until  the  number  is  reduced  to  less  than  eight ;  and  thereafter  there 

shaD  be  but  eight  Brigadier-Generals  in  the  army That  hereafter 

the  term  of  enlistment  shall  be  five  years That,  until  otherwise 

directed  by  law,  there  shall  be  no  new  appointments  and  no  promotions 
in  the  Adjutant-General's  Department,  in  the  Inspector-General's  Depart- 
ment, in  the  Pay  Department,  in  the  Quartermaster's  Department,  in  the 
Commissary  Department,  in  the  Ordnance  Department,  in  the  Engineer 
Department,  and  in  the  Medical  Department" 


MR.  CHAIRMAN,  —  I  desire  to  state  to  the  committee  as 
briefly  as  I  can  the  substance  of  the  amendment  offered 
by  the  Committee  on  Military  Affairs,  and  to  call  their  atten- 
tion to  the  questions  involved  in  the  proposed  reduction  of  the 
army;  and  as  the  amendment  is  likely  to  meet  with  some  op- 
position, I  shall  be  greatly  obliged  if  I  can  have  the  attention 
of  the  committee  while  I  state  the  conclusions  and  recommen- 
dations of  the  Committee  on  Military  Affairs,  and  the  grounds 
of  their  action. 

I  wish,  in  the  outset,  to  say  that  the  committee  share  to  the 
fullest  extent  in  the  general  desire  and  determination  of  this 
House  to  reduce  expenditures,  and  they  believe  that  the  extent 
to  which  retrenchment  ought  to  be  carried  should  be  limited 
only  by  the  necessities  of  the  public  service  and  the  efficiency 
of  the  several  departments  of  the  government.  Retrenchment 
unwisely  made  is  wastefulness.  It  is  not  economy  alone  that 
should  be  considered  in  reorganizing  the  army.  The  com- 
mittee have  proceeded,  and  I  shall  proceed,  upon  the  supposi- 
tion that  the  question  has  been  settled  by  Congress  that  we  are 
to  maintain  an  army  of  such  size  and  organization  as  the  people 
are  willing  to  support  with  their  means,  and  will  be  proud  of 
as  a  worthy  and  valuable  instrument  of  the  government.  When 
the  army  is  properly  organized,  when  it  is  not  too  large,  when 
it  is  well  officered  and  well  disciplined,  it  ought  to  be  the  pride 
of  every  American  citizen ;  it  ought  to  be  an  institution  that  we 
desire  to  protect;  and  it  is  the  duty  of  this  House  so  to  adjust 
and  limit  its  organization  that  we  shall  not  need  to  make  it  the 
object  of  evcry-day  attack,  but  may  defend  it  here  while  it 
defends  the  country  and  maintains  the  national  hq^ior.  It  ap- 
pears to  me,  therefore,  Mr.  Chairman,  that  the  preliminary  and 


410  THE  REDUCTION  OF  THE  ARMY. 

primary  inquiry  is,  How  large  an  army  do  we  need?  When 
we  have  settled  that,  we  should  next  make  all  the  reduc- 
tion and  retrenchment  consistent  with  the  national  honor  and 
with  the  efficiency  of  the  army  that  we  have  determined  to 
maintain.  To  these  considerations  I  invite  the  attention  of  the 
committee. 

In  order  to  understand  the  situation,  I  beg  leave  to  call  the 
attention  of  the  committee  to  the  size  of  our  army  as  now  au- 
thorized by  law,  and  then  to  what  it  is  in  fact. 

The  army,  as  it  stood  before  the  war,  was  admitted  on  all 
hands  to  be  the  smallest  organization  consistent  with  the  public 
safety  in  time  of  peace.  We  had  in  t86o  an  army  of  11,848 
enlisted  men  and  1,083  commissioned  officers.  In  July,  1866, 
not  quite  three  years  ago,  Congress  discussed  very  fully  what 
should  be  our  future  army,  and,  after  long  debate  in  both  houses, 
passed  the  law  of  July  28,  1866,  fixing  the  military  peace  estab- 
lishment. That  law  authorized  five  regiments  of  artillery,  ten 
of  cavalry,  and  forty-five  of  infantry,  and  fixed  the  staff  depart- 
ments as  they  are  now  organized.  The  law  so  fixed  the  maxi- 
mum strength  and  the  minimum  strength  of  a  regiment  of  each 
arm  of  the  service,  that  the  army  might  contain  as  many  as 
80,370  or  as  few  as  47,270  of  enlisted  men.  Whether  it  should 
be  in  fact  the  larger  or  the  smaller  number,  or  any  intermedi- 
ate number,  was  left  to  the  wisdom  and  discretion  of  the  Presi- 
dent of  the  United  States.  This  law  of  July,  1866,  was  the 
last  legislative  utterance  of  the  people  of  the  United  States 
through  their  Congress  in  regard  to  their  peace  establishment, 
and  that  utterance  declared  that  we  should  have  an  army  of 
about  3,200  commissioned  officers,  and  from  47,000  to  80,000 
of  enlisted  men.  The  President  used  the  discretion  given  him 
by  this  law,  and  I  will  show  how  he  has  used  it.  The  new  army, 
organized  in  accordance  with  this  law,  amounted  in  1867  to 
54,641  men.  One  year  later,  as  shown  by  the  Army  Register  of 
1868,  the  army  had  been  allowed  to  run  down  to  52,948  men. 
That  was  the  force  in  August,  1868.  I  ought  to  mention,  in 
passing,  that  while  General  Grant  was  Secretary  of  War  ad 
interim  he  cut  off  nearly  eighteen  thousand  civil  employees  of 
the  army  and  War  Department  who  were  not  mustered  into  the 
military  service.  As  the  necessity  of  a  military  police  in  the  late 
Rebel  State§  diminished,  the  rank  and  file  of  the  army  has  been 
allowed  to  decrease  by  not  filling  it  by  enlistments,  until,  on  the 


THE  REDUCTION  OF  THE  ARMY.  411 

1st  of  January,  1869,  a  little  more  than  five  weeks  ago,  the  full 
strength  of  the  army  was  38,575  enlisted  men,  and  a  few  less 
than  3,CXX)  commissioned  officers. 

The  army  is  now  below  the  minimum.  The  law  has  not  been 
construed  as  requiring  it  to  be  kept  up  to  the  minimum,  though 
perhaps  a  strict  construction  would  require  the  President  to 
recruit  it  up  to  47,270;  and  he  can  to-day  order  it  increased 
to  80,000  men.  Such  being  the  law  now,  the  question  is,  How 
much  lower  shall  we  fix  the  legal  limit  to  the  size  of  our  army? 

In  the  first  place,  the  Committee  on  Military  Affairs  have  not 
thought  it  wise  to  depart  from  the  policy  of  the  government, 
which  has  not  been  changed  during  almost  half  a  century,  that, 
while  we  do  not  need  to  keep  in  time  of  peace  an  army  sufficient 
for  a  time  of  war,  yet  we  ought  in  time  of  peace  to  keep  alive  and 
in  vigorous  growth  a  knowledge  of  military  science  and  habits 
of  military  discipline,  and  maintain  such  an  organization  as  can 
be  readily  expanded  and  placed  upon  a  war  footing  whenever 
the  necessity  for  it  shall  arise. 

In  looking  over  the  debates  and  historical  reviews  that  fol- 
lowed the  war  of  18 12,  I  have  noticed  that  it  wa$  conceded  on 
all  hands,  that  before  the  war  the  army  had  been  allowed  to  run 
down  to  so  low  a  point  that,  when  the  war  came  on,  the  coun- 
try found  itself  with  an  organization  insufficient  to  be  expanded 
into  an  army  on  a  war  footing;  and  the  Secretary  of  War,  a 
few  years  after  that  war  ended,  said,  in  an  official  report  to 
Congress,  that  the  losses  and  expenses  resulting  from  this  in- 
sufficient organization  during  the  first  year  or  two  of  the  war 
were  vastly  greater  than  the  expense  that  would  have  been 
incurred  in  maintaining  an  army  large  enough  to  be  readily 
expanded  to  a  war  basis.  For  this  purpose,  how  much  larger  is 
our  army  now  than  it  ought  to  be? 

Aside  from  this  question  we  must  consider  our  present  situa- 
tion in  regard  to  Indian  hostilities.  Last  session  the  Committee 
on  Military  Affairs  recommended  a  small  reduction  in  the  cavalry  ^ 
arm  of  the  service.  At  this  time  they  do  not  report  any  reduc- 
tion of  the  cavalry,  for  the  reason  that  in  the  Indian  war  now 
in  progress,  and  in  Indian  wars  generally,  cavalry  are  the  main 
reliance.  Our  officers  in  command  say  that  infantry  can  be  of 
little  value  in  actual  Indian  fighting,  especially  in  the  winter 
time;  and  in  order  to  meet  the  necessities  of  the  case,  the 
Secretary  of  War  has  raised  in  Kansas,  and  has  been  employing 


412  THE  REDUCTION  OF  THE  ARMY. 

for  the  last  five  or  six  months,  a  volunteer  regiment  of  cavalry 
to  serve  against  the  Indians,  the  cavalry  of  the  army  being 
insufficient  for  that  purpose.  So  long,  therefore,  as  we  find  it 
necessary  to  employ  volunteer  cavalry  to  assist  in  this  Indian 
war,  the  committee  do  not  feel  themselves  justified  in  recom- 
mending a  reduction  of  that  arm  of  the  service. 

We  have  now  nearly  the  same  artillery  organization  that  we 
had  before  the  war.  In  i860  we  had  four  regiments  of  artillery ; 
there  was  an  increase  of  one  regiment  made  by  the  act  of  1866; 
and  it  must  be  remembered  that  since  the  passage  of  that  law 
we  have  greatly  extended  our  coast,  — that  we  have  added  an 
empire  to  the  republic.  At  the  present  time,  as  the  records 
of  Uie  War  Department  show,  we  have  a  chain  of  fortified  posts 
along  otir  coasts,  mounting  three  thousand  two  hundred  and 
fifty  coast  guns,  and  we  have  not  enough  enlisted  men  in  the 
artillery  to  enable  us  to  put  two  men  to  each  gun.  These  forti- 
fications are  a  part  of  the  defensive  force  of  the  United  States. 
If  they  need  not  be  manned,  they  must  at  least  be  taken  care 
of;  and  the  force  that  takes  care  of  them  should  form  the  mili- 
tary police  of  our  coasts  to  enforce  the  collection  of  revenue, 
and,  if  need  be,  to  enforce  the  respect  of  all  who  approach 
our  shores.  The  committee  considered  the  number  of  posts 
now  occupied  by  the  army,  the  number  of  our  fortified  works, 
the  number  of  our  coast  guns  now  in  place,  and  have  not 
thought  themselves  justified  in  reducing  the  present  force  of 
artillery. 

Mr.  Logan.  I  would  like  to  ask  the  gentleman  a  question  for  infor- 
mation, inasmuch  as  I  have  not  given  the  subject  much  consideration. 
I  would  like  the  chairman  of  the  Committee  on  Military  Affairs  to  infomi 
the  House  whether  in  time  of  peace  there  is  any  necessity  for  having  at 
each  of  our  forts  enough  men  to  man  each  gun,  as  if  we  were  in  a  state  of 
war.  In  other  words,  is  there  any  necessity  for  any  more  men  than  may 
be  required  to  keep  the  guns  and  carriages  and  necessary  implements  in 
order  ? 

I  quite  agree  with  the  gentleman  from  Illinois,  that  we  do  not 
need  in  time  of  peace  as  many  guns  as  would  be  required  in 
time  of  war ;  nor  do  I  hold  that  it  is  necessary  even  to  man  all 
the  guns  that  we  have.  But  I  regard  it  a  proper  policy  for  the 
government  to  occupy  and  keep  in  good  order  such  of  our 
coast  defences  as  are  necessary  for  the  protection  of  the  coast, 
and  as  may  be  vitally  important  to  us  in  case  of  foreign  war. 


THE  REDUCTION  OF  THE  ARMY.  413 

Passing  over  several  points  which  may  properly  be  consid- 
ered when  we  discuss  the  details  of  the  bill,  I  come  now  to  the 
infantry.  In  making  their  recommendations  on  this  subject, 
the  Committee  on  Military  Affairs  do  not  forget  that  the  Secre- 
tary of  War  and  the  General-in-Chief  of  the  Army,  at  the  open- 
ing of  this  session,  were  very  decided  in  their  recommendations 
that  there  be  no  legislation  at  present  requiring  the  reduction 
of  the  army,  and  in  the  opinion  that  the  condition  of  our  affairs 
would  not  allow  a  more  rapid  reduction  than  was  going  on  by 
the  expiration  of  terms  of  enlistment  Still,  the  committee, 
anxious  to  do  everything  consistent  with  safety  in  the  way  of 
the  reduction  of  expenditures,  have  proposed  in  this  amendment 
the  cutting  down  by  consolidation  of  fifteen  infantry  regiments, 
so  that,  instead  of  forty-five  regiments,  as  now  authorized  by 
law,  there  shall  hereafter  be  but  thirty.  We  believe  that  the 
progress  made  in  the  work  of  restoring  the  late  Rebel  States, 
and  the  more  pacific  aspects  of  the  South  under  the  incoming 
administration,  will  warrant  us  in  making  this  measure  of  reduc- 
tion in  the  line  of  the  army.  The  consolidation  and  ultimate 
reduction  of  the  number  of  officers  and  enlisted  men  of  fifteen 
regiments  will  result  in  a  reduction  of  expenses  of  about  ten 
million  dollars  per  annum. 

But  the  Committee  on  Military  Affairs  have  raised  a  question 
which,  in  their  judgment,  is  even  more  important  to  the  coun- 
try and  the  army  than  a  specific  reduction  of  numbers;  and 
that  question  is,  whether  we  cannot,  in  some  departments  of 
the  army,  make  an  organic  reduction,  so  that  the  work  of  the 
army  may  be  performed  by  a  smaller  number  of  officers  than 
we  now  employ.  Entertaining  views  on  this  subject  which  we 
desired  to  test  by  the  experience  of  men  who  had  been  long  in 
the  service,  the  committee  have  called  before  them  during  the 
last  three  weeks  a  number  of  distinguished  officers,  examined 
them,  and  have  preserved  a  phonographic  report  of  their  testi- 
mony. We  called  line  officers  of  the  highest  rank  accessible  to 
us,  except  thci  Gc*cral-in-Chief  of  the  Army,  and  officers  repre- 
senting the  vr.rious  staff  departments  of  the  army.  The  results 
of  our  investigation  will  be  shortly  laid  before  the  House  for 
its  information ;  and  I  desire  to  say  here,  that  I  know  of  no 
documents  relating  to  the  army  and  the  various  parts  of  its 
organization  so  valuable  as  this  testimony.  By  these  examina- 
tions the  committee  have  reached  some  conclusions  which  I 
desire  to  state. 


414  THE  REDUCTION  OF  THE  ARMY. 

We  have  found  that  during  the  late  war,  and  indeed  for  many 
years,  there  has  been  a  tendency  in  the  army — a  natural  one, 
perhaps  —  to  aggregate  force  here  in  Washington.  There  has 
been  a  tendency  to  build  up  separate  staif  departments,  distinct 
from  the  rest  of  the  army,  and  to  increase  tlie  number  and  rank 
of  the  officers  in  each  department ;  and  we  observe,  generally, 
that  the  increase  m  numbers  has  been  toward  the  head,  rather 
than  toward  the  foot,  of  the  organization.  The  development  of 
the  army  during  the  last  forty  years  has  been  in  the  direction 
of  multiplying  bureaus,  and  increasing  the  number  and  rank  of 
officers  in  each. 

Mr.  Butler.    What  new  military  bureaus  have  been  created? 

Several  of  the  staff  departments  were  created  in  1818.  The 
Bureau  of  Military  Justice  was  created  since  the  war  began,  and 
the  inspectors  have  been  separated  from  the  Adjutant-General's 
Department  more  than  they  were  before.  We  found  on  exam- 
ination that  our  staff  corps  differed  widely  from  those  of  the 
leading  armies  of  the  world.  In  the  French  army,  for  instance, 
■PjgiBQbftbly  the  most  perfectly  organized  in  the  world,  —  there 
isj-  oae  ^gnst  staff  organization  that  supplies  the  army  with 
adjutant-generak,  inspectors,  aides-de-camp,  and  other  like  offi- 
cers ;  and  another  staff  charged  with  the  supply  of  the  army. 
Thus  the  duties  of  one  staff  corps  relate  to  the  personnel,  the 
duties  of  the  other  to  the  matiriely  of  the  army.  Yet  we  have 
now  in  our  army  not  less  than  ten  distinct  staff  organizations, 
with  a  constant  tendency  to  increase  in  numbers  and  rank.  Be- 
fore the  war,  only  one  officer  in  all  the  staff  corps  held  the  rank 
of  brigadier-general ;  now  there  are  at  the  head  of  these  corps 
nine  brigadier-generals,  besides  a  chief  of  staff  of  the  army  of 
the  same  rank.  The  Chief  Surgeon  of  the  army  has  become  a 
brigadier-general ;  the  Chief  Paymaster,  the  Adjutant-General, 
the  Judge  Advocate,  the  Chief  Commissary,  the  Chiefs  of  Ord- 
nance and  of  Engineers,  have  all  become  brigadier-generals. 
We  have  now  nineteen  brigadier-generals  in  the  army,  as  au- 
thorized by  law.  The  committee  inquired  howr  far  we  might 
go  in  consolidating  and  reducing  these  staff  organizations  with- 
out diminishing  the  efficiency  pf  the  service. 

Our  attention  was  directed  to  the  departments  which  furnish 
supplies ;  particularly  the  quartermaster,  commissary,  and  pay 
departments.     There  appears  to  be  no  natural  division  between 


THE  REDUCTION  OF  THE  ARMY.  415 

the  duties  of  these  departments ;  and  we  saw  no  reason  in  the 
nature  of  the  case  why  one  man  should  buy  oats,  and  another 
man  belonging  to  another  department  should  buy  flour.  We 
saw  no  particular  reason  why  there  should  be  one  department 
for  clothing  the  army,  and  another  for  feeding  the  army.  We 
found,  what  is  of  more  consequence,  that  these  departments 
conflict  in  many  practical  points  in  such  a  way  as  to  increase 
the  expenditure  unnecessarily.  In  the  first  place,  the  commis- 
sary department  purchases  all  the  supplies  that  make  up  the 
rations  of  the  army.  An  officer  is  stationed  in  New  York,  for 
example,  as  purchasing  commissary.  He  buys  the  rations; 
but  the  moment  he  has  purchased  them,  they  pass  out  of  his 
hands,  and  the  quartermaster's  department  becomes  responsible 
for  their  transportation  to  the  distant  points  where  the  army 
is  stationed,  when  they  are  taken  by  an  officer  detailed  from 
the  line,  and  distributed  to  the  troops.  This  officer  performs 
at  the  same  time  the  duties  of  commissary  and  quartermaster. 
The  work  begins  with  the  commissary  department,  is  trans- 
ferred to  the  quartermaster's  department,  and  finally  ends  with 
the  commissary  department,  where  the  rations  are  issued. 
When  they  reach  the  troops,  we  find  the  two  departments 
united  in  one,  yet  the  accounts  are  kept 'distinct  The  same 
officer  issues  the  rations,  and  clothing,  and  other  supplies, 
keeps  one  clerk  to  make  out  quartermasters'  papers  to  go  up 
to  Washington  to  the  head  of  that  department,  and  usually  at 
the  same  time  keeps  another  clerk  to  send  another  set  of  pa- 
pers through  another  channel  to  the  head  of  the  commissary 
department,  also  in  Washington. 

Now,  it  is  the  natural  and  laudable  desire  of  an  honest  com- 
missary to  cut  down  the  expenses  and  the  disbursements  of 
money  in  his  department  to  the  lowest  point  possible.  He  will, 
therefore,  incline  to  buy  where  he  can  buy  cheapest ;  but  when 
the  quartermaster  transports  these  supplies  to  the  troops,  the 
total  cost  may  be  far  more  than  it  would  have  been  if  they  had 
been  bought  nearer  the  place  of  consumption,  where  they  would 
cost  a  little  more,  but  would  require  less  transportation.  Npw, 
if  these  two  departments  were  united,  purchasing  officers,  being 
responsible  also  for  the  transportation,  would  make  purchases 
with  a  view  to  economy  not  only  in  the  purchase,  but  in  the 
transportation  also. 

Again,  I  call  attention  to  the  pay  department.     As  now  or- 


4i6  THE  REDUCTION  OF  THE  ARMY. 

ganized,  I  have  no  doubt  that  our  funds  are  disbursed  with  as 
much  safety  and  honesty  as  those  of  any  country  in  the  world. 
But  consider  how  the  work  is  done.  The  country  is  divided 
into  pay  districts,  with  headquarters  in  each,  at  which  a  force  of 
paymasters  is  stationed.  When  troops  are  to  be  paid  at  a  dis- 
tant post,  a  paymaster  starts  from  his  headquarters  with  a 
box  of  money.  The  quartermaster's  department  furnishes  him 
transportation,  and  the  commander  of  the  troops  gives  him  a 
military  escort  to  the  place  where  the  payment  is  to  be  made. 
He  must  be  thus  escorted  from  post  to  post,  and  finally  be  es- 
corted and  transported  back  to  his  headquarters  with  his  sur- 
plus funds,  if  he  have  any.  As  the  practice  is  to  pay  the  troops 
once  in  two  months,  this  operation  must  be  repeated  six  times 
a  year,  with  all  its  cost  of  mileage  and  escort,  while  at  the  same 
time  in  all  these  pay  districts  there  is  a  complete  organization 
of  cohimissaries,  and  another  complete  and  separate  organiza- 
tion of  quartermasters,  charged  with  the  disbursement  of  public 
money  and  the  custody  of  public  property.  If  the  duty  of  pay- 
ing the  troops  were  placed  in  the  hands  of  these  officers,  the 
cost  of  transport  and  escort  would  be  avoided,  and  the  officers, 
being  always  on  duty  with  the  troops,  could  make  the  payment 
much  more  promptly  and  regularly  than  it  is  now  done. 

It  is  in  evidence  before  the  committee,  that  many  of  the 
troops  at  distant  posts  are  paid  but  once  in  six  months,  and 
in  some  instances  not  so  often  as  that.  It  also  appears,  that  at 
all  these  posts  an  officer  detailed  from  the  line  performs  the 
duty  of  both  commissary  and  quartermaster,  and  if,  as  we  pro- 
pose in  the  pending  amendment,  this  officer  shall  be  required 
to  give  bonds,  as  now  required  of  disbursing  officers  in  the 
quartermaster's  department,  he  can  pay  the  troops  in  addition 
to  his  other  duties  without  any  additional  cost  to  the  govern- 
ment. Considering,  therefore,  the  nature  of  the  duties  of  these 
three  departments,  that  they  are  in  many  respects  complements 
of  each  other,  and  considering  also  the  fact  that  in  some  other 
countries  all  these  functions  are  performed  by  one  department, 
the  Committee  on  Military  Affairs  are  of  the  opinion  that  the 
consolidation  of  the  three  might  safely  be  made.  But  they  were 
not  willing  to  recommend  so  radical  a  change  in  the  organiza- 
tion of  the  army  on  their  own  judgment  alone ;  they  therefore 
called  to  their  aid  officers  whose  professional  duties  enabled 
them  to  speak  from  practical  knowledge. 


THE  REDUCTION  OF  THE  ARMY.  417 

It  is  due  to  the  distinguished  officers  at  the  head  of  the  sev- 
eral staff  departments  to  state  that  most  of  them  were  opposed 
to  the  proposed  consolidation.  And  I  ought  to  say,  that  during 
the  late  war  these  departments  performed  the  duties  severally 
devolved  upon  them  with  great  efficiency.  I  do  not  doubt  that 
our  army  was  better  fed  and  clothed,  and  more  bountifully  sup- 
plied thai>  any  other  army  in  modern  times ;  and  it  was  paid 
as  promptly  as  the  state  of  the  treasury  would  permit.  Great 
praise  is  due  to  the  men  who  organized  and  managed  the  vast 
machinery  by  which  the  supplies  were  furnished.  But  I  have 
no  doubt  that  a  staff  organization  less  divided  and  less  inde- 
pendent in  its.  subdivision  might  have  supplied  the  army 
equally  well  and  much  more  economically.  I  hope  soon  to  lay 
all  the  testimony  before  the  House ;  but  in  the  short  time  now 
at  my  command  I  can  do  little  more  than  refer  to  it.  I  will, 
however,  place  on  record  a  few  passages  which  exhibit  the 
opinions  of  some  officers  who  testified  .on  the  point  now  under 
discussion. 

[Here  Mr.  Garfield  quoted  from  the  testimony  of  General  John  M.. 
Schofield,  Secretary  of  War,  in  which  that  officer  declared  himself  ia 
favor  of  consolidating  the  commissary,  quartermaster's,  and  paymaster's 
departments.*     Mr.  Garfield  then  proceeded.] 

In  General  McDowell's  testimony  he  gives  the  origin  and  his- 
tory of  the  several  staff  departments  of  the  army,  and  sketches 
the  process  by  which  the  work  of  division  has  gone  steadily  on 
for  half  a  century.  From  the  organization  of  the  government 
under  the  Constitution  down  to  18 12,  the  supplies  of  the  army 
were  not  furnished  by  the  War  Department  at  all,  but  by  the 
Secretary  of  the  Treasury.  The  pay  department  was  not  a  dis- 
tinct organization,  as  it  now  is,  until  18 19. 

[Here  followed  a  lengthy  quotation  from  the  testimony  of  General 
Irwin  McDowell.     Mr.  Garfield  then  continued  his  remarks.] 

It  will  be  seen  by  this  testimony  that  General  McDowell  sue* 
cessfully  consolidated  the  two  departments  in  his  late  command 
on  the  Pacific  coast,  and  thus  proved  its  practicability. 

The  gentleman  from  Illinois,  near  me,'^  suggests  that  he  would 
like  to  have  some  evidence  from  an  officer  who  has  himself  per- 

*  All  the  testimony  quoted  by  Mr.  Garfield  that  is  here  omitted  is  found  in 
House  of  Representatives  Report,  No.  33,  3d  Session,  40th  Congress,  made  Feb- 
ruary 26,  1869. 

*  Mr.  Logan. 

VOL.   I.  27 


4i8  TME  REDUCTION  OF  THE  ARMY. 

formed  both  duties.  I  am  glad  to  be  able  to  furnish  some  such 
evidence.  It  is  the  testimony  of  General  Rufus  Ingalls,  one  of 
the  most  distinguished  officers  in  the  quartermaster's  depart- 
menti  whose  services  as  Chief  Quartermaster  of  the  Army  of  the 
Potomac  during  the  war  have  become  an  illustrious  part  of  our 
history. 

[The  lengthy  quotation  made  from  General  IngaHs  is  omitted.  Mr. 
Garfield  continued.] 

It  will  be  seen  from  this  that  General  IngaUs  actually  per- 
formed, for  a  long  period,  the  duties  of  these  three  departments, 
and  he  declares  that  there  is  no  practical  difficulty  in  the  way  of 
consolidation.  I  should  quote  from  the  testimony  of  General 
Hancock,  were  it  before  me ;  but  I  will  say  only  that  he  fully 
concurs  with  the  officers  from  whom  I  have  quoted.  Another 
officer  who  has  long  been  in  the  pay  department.  General  Ihre, 
not  only  confirms  these  views,  but  long  ago  presented  the  draft 
of  a  bill  for  the  consolidation  of  the  three  departments. 

For  these  reasons,  therefore,  the  committee  believe  that  those 
three  departments  can  be  consolidated,  and  we  have  prepared  a 
section  for  that  purpose,  which  will  reduce  the  number  of  officers 
very  considerably.  There  are  at  present  in  those  three  depart- 
ments one  hundred  and  eighty-seven  commissioned  officers. 
We  have  proposed  a  supply  department  of  one  hundred  and 
fifteen  officers,  making  a  reduction  of  seventy-two ;  and  we  be- 
lieve that  all  the  duties  now  performed  by  the  three  departments 
can  ultimately  be  performed  as  well  by  the  one  department  as 
by  the  present  organizations.  Indeed,  we  think  they  can  be 
better  performed. 

The  committee,  however,  do  not  believe  it  possible  to  deter- 
mine beforehand  the  precise  extent  to  which  the  reduction  in 
the  number  of  officers  can  safely  go,  and  they  have  placed  the 
execution  of  this  law  in  the  hands  of  the  President,  giving  him 
such  discretion  that  the  service  may  not  suffer  by  a  sudden  and 
violent  breaking  up  of  the  present  organization.  Before  the 
reduction  is  completed,  he  will  have  time  and  opportunity  to 
communicate  with  Congress  on  the  subject,  and  to  recommend 
any  change  that  he  may  deem  necessary.  But  we  have  proposed 
this  measure  of  reduction  as  the  mark  to  be  aimed  at. 

Mr.  Butler.  As  the  gentleman  has  reached  a  period,  I  desire  to 
put  a  question  to  him.  He  says  this  cuts  off  seventy-two  officers.  What 
does  he  do  with  them? 


THE  REDUCTION  OF  THE  ARMY.  419 

I  reserve  all  I  have  to  say  on  that  subject  to  a  later  point,  for 
I  have  not  finished  what  I  desire  to  say  with  regard  to  the  Con- 
solidation. 

Mr.  Logan.  I  desire  to  say  a  word  at  this  point,  because  I  agree  with 
the  gentleman  in  reference  to  consolidation,  and  I  expect  he  is  more 
conversant  with  the  matter  than  I  am.  I  do  not  suppose  the  House  will 
take  my  testimony,  for  the  reason  that  gentlemen  who  are  called  before 
the  Military  Committee  are  generally  men  of  high  distinction  as  military 
officers ;  but  I  will  say  to  the  chairman,  that  when  I  was  a  boy  I  was 
commissary  and  quartermaster  of  a  regiment,  and  performed  all  the 
duties  with  one  clerk,  and  my  accounts  here  show  that  I  did  not  owe  the 
government  a  cent  I  performed  all  the  duties  for  two  years.  That 
was  in  1848. 

I  am  very  glad  my  friend  has  alluded  to  that,  for  he  has  called 
my  attention  to  a  point  I  was  about  to  omit,  and  I  think  it  will 
have  great  weight  with  members  of  the  House.  At  each  of  the 
posts,  of  which  there  are  many  hundreds,  there  must  be  an 
officer  to  issue  rations  and  supplies  to  the  troops.  That  officer, 
in  ninety-nine  cases  in  one  hundred,  performs  the  duties  of 
quartermaster  and  commissary,  so  that  the  duty  of  issuing  the 
two  kinds  of  supplies  to  the  troops  is  now  actually  performed 
by  one  officer,  and  what  the  committee  recommend  is,  that  we 
continue  the  union  all  the  way  up  to  Washington. 

I  desire  to  call  attention  for  a  moment  —  for  I  see  my  time  is 
rapidly  passing  —  to  the  next  recommendation  for  consolidation 
made  in  this  amendment.  We  have  an  Ordnance  Department, 
separate  and  distinct,  which  has  been  steadily  growing,  until  at 
last  it  really  has  an  independent  army  under  its  control.  There 
are  now  one  thousand  enlisted  men  in  the  military  service  who 
receive  their  orders  only  from  this  department  They  are  not 
a  part  of  the  army  under  the  command  of  its  generals,  but 
under  the  command  of  a  staff  corps  at  Washington.  No  de- 
partment commander  commands  them.  General  Grant  does  not 
command  them.  They  receive  their  orders  from  the  Ordnance 
Department  only,  unless  the  President  empowers  some  other 
officer  to  give  them  orders. 

Now,  what  is  the  business  of  this  Ordnance  Department  ?  It 
is  to  select  the  models,  and  to  manufacture  and  distribute  arms 
and  ammunition  for  the  use  of  the  army.  The  men  who  use  the 
artillery  have  nothing  to  say  in  regard  to  the  guns  or  ammuni- 
tion that  they  use.     It  would  appear  to  be  only  just  that  the 


420  TBE  REDUCTION  OF  THE  ARMY. 

scientific  men  who  understand  all  that  belongs  to  artillery  should 
have  something  to  say  about  their  weapons.  The  testimony  of 
General  McDowell  on  this  point  is  so  full  and  satisfactory,  that 
I  quote  a  passage  from  it  in  place  of  any  further  discussion  of 
my  own. 

''  Questim,  What  is  your  opinion  as  to  the  propriety  of  consolidating 
the  ArtiUery  arm  of  the  service  with  the  Ordnance  Department? 

''  Answer.  If  you  had  asked  the  question  as  to  whether  a  corps  could 
have  been' constituted  that  would  do  these  two  services  better  than  the 
present  two  organizations,  I  should  say  yes. 

''  Q.  Give  your  reason  for  this. 

^^  A.  We  have  now  a  body  of  officers  [artillerists]  who  have  no  lot  or 
part  in  the  devise  or  manufacture  of  the  artillery  and  munitions  they 
use,  and  a  body  of  officers  [Ordnance  Corps]  who  do  not  use,  or  whose 
duty  it  is  not  to  use  the  guns  and  {projectiles  and  munitions  they  make. 
This,  it  is  true,  applies,  but  in  a  fisur  less  degree,  to  the  other  arms  of 
the  service ;  but  in  the  artillery  good  should  come  of  there  being  a  closer 
connection  between  the  theory  and  practice  the  art  than  exists.  In 
both  the  English  and  the  French  service  the  ordnance  and  artillery,  such 
as  is  the  latter  with  us,  form  one  corps. 

"  Q,  Were  they  ever  so  in  our  service  ? 

"  A,  In  the  Mexican  war,  General  Scott  used  the  Ordnance  officers 
in  the  service  of  his  siege  artillery.  They  also  served  in  the  light  bat- 
tery. I  find  we  have  had  an  Ordnance  Department  in  which  officers 
of  artillery  were  on  duty  at  arsenals.  We  had  no  light  artiUery  at  that 
time,  nothing  but  heavy  guns  on  the  seaboard  fortifications.  We  did 
not  have  light  artillery  until  1838.  There  are  many  inconveniences  in 
having  the  ordnance  and  artillery  distinct,  but  it  has  also  its  good  side. 
There  is  a  good  deal  to  be  said  in  favor  of  it. 

"  Q.   Has  this  question  been  debated  in  the  army? 

"  A,  Yes,  to  a  considerable  extent  The  Artillery  mostly  desire  it,  but 
the  Ordnance  Corps  oppose  the  consolidation.  They  command  their 
own  arsenals,  and  report  only  to  their  chief  in  Washington  ;  they  have 
their  appropriations,  and  construct  all  their  own  buildings,  and  the  con- 
sequence is  you  see  the  Ordnance  establishment  very  much  better  than 
any  other  part  of  the  service.  They  have  a  very  strong  esprit  de  corps, 
and  would  dislike  very  much  to  see  themselves  merged  into  any  other 
branch.  The  difficulties  I  see  in  the  way  are  more  of  a  personal  nature 
than  anything  else.  You  get  considerable  advantage  in  keeping  a  man 
on  some  special  subject."  * 

^  Report  of  the  Committee  on  Military  Affairs,  on  Army  Organization,  H.  R., 
Feb.  26,  1869,  pp.  103, 104. 


THE  REDUCTION  OF  THE  ARMY.  421 

The  committee,  therefore,  recommend  that  the  Ordnance 
Corps  be  abolished,  and  that  the  officers  and  troop  connected 
with  it  be  transferred  to  the  Artillery,  and  that  a  reduction  be 
made  to  the  extent  of  sixteen  officers. 

I  intend,  also,  to  move  an  amendment  that  the  Signal  Corps 
be  consolidated  with  the  Engineer  Department.  We  should 
keep  alive  in  the  army  the  knowledge  of  signalling,  and  make 
it  a  part  of  the  instruction  at  the  Military  Academy^  but  we 
want  no  more  force  for  this  purpose  than  is  necessary. 

I  ought  to  say,  before  leaving  this  subject,  that  the  commit- 
tee were  impressed  with  the  necessity  of  a  reform  in  the  Staff 
Departments  that  does  not  call  for  legislation  to  accomplish  it. 
There  is  in  nearly  all  of  them  a  tendency  to  independence,  which 
goes  far  toward  destroying  that  unity  of  command  and  authority 
which  should  always  be  possessed  by  commanders.  The  Ad- 
jutant-General's Department,  for  example,  whose  duties  should 
be  strictly  confined  to  records,  orders,  and  correspondence,  has 
charge  of  the  recruitfng  service,  and  commands  thousands  of 
troops.  A  general  commanding  a  geographical  department  has 
no  control  over  recruits  or  recruiting  stations,  —  no  control  or 
supervision  of  arsenals  or  depots  of  provisions,  nor  of  the  officers 
in  charge  of  them ;  nor  has  he  any  right,  without  special  author- 
ity from  the  President,  to  command  an  officer  of  Engineers  to 
perform  any  duty  whatever.  It  appeared,  in  the  evidence  before 
the  committee,  that  in  one  instance  during  the  war  a  captain  of 
Engineers  protested  against  the  right  of  the  major-general  com- 
manding the  department  in  which  he  was  stationed  to  order 
him  to  inspect  a  for^tification,  with  a  view  to  putting  it  in  a  better 
state  of  defence ;  and  the  protest  was  sustained  at  Washington. 
In  that  case,  however,  the  captain  was  justified  by  one  of  the 
Articles  of  War.  But  most  of  these  evils  have  grown  up  by 
almost  imperceptible  degrees,  as  matters  of  custom,  and  need 
only  executive  action  to  correct  them. 

There  are  several  other  points  in  the  amendment  of  the  com- 
mittee which  I  will  notice  briefly  in  passing. 

We  do  not  propose  to  abolish  brevets  altogether,  but  to  reg- 
ulate them  in  the  future,  so  that  they  shall  be  conferred  only  in 
time  of  war  for  actual  service  in  the  face  of  the  enemy ;  and 
that  the  precedence  in  rank  and  command  conferred  by  brevet 
by  the  Articles  of  War  shall  be  taken  away.  I  will  not  stop  to 
discuss  this  now,  because  it  has  already  passed  the  House,  and 


422  THE  REDUCTION  OF  THE  ARMY. 

has  gone  to  the  Senate.  We  propose,  also,  to  extend  the  term 
of  enlistment  in  the  future  from  three  to  five  years.  This  will 
yivc  us  more  efficient  soldiers  and  at  less  expense,  Wc  also 
propose  to  reduce  the  number  of  non-commissioned  officers, 
and  to  muster  out  fourteen  of  the  bands  of  music  now  author- 
ized by  law. 

I  now  call  attention  to  the  mode  of  reduction  proposed.  The 
Committee  on  Miliury  Affairs  believed  that  the  House  desired 
the  transfer  of  the  Indian  Bureau  to  the  War  Department. 
They  therefore  put  in  a  provision  for  that  purpose,  in  tlie  hope 
that  it  might  be  allowed  to  remain.  If  that  had  been  done, 
nearly  six  hundred  civil  officers,  Indian  agents  and  employees 
of  the  government  in  the  Indian  service,  whose  total  salaries 
amount  to  nearly  half  a  million  dollars  a  year,  could  have  been 
dispensed  with,  and  their  places  supplied  by  officers  of  the 
army.  That  provision  has  been  stricken  out,  on  a  point  of 
order  made  by  the  gentleman  from  Massachusetts.'  There- 
fore, one  of  the  features  of  the  amendment  as  reported  from 
the  committee,  which  would  have  provided  for  the  employ- 
ment of  officers  who  might  be  rendered  supernumerary  by 
its  operation,  has  been  changed  by  the  action  of  the  House, 
and  it  rests  with  the  House  to  say  what  further  change  shall 
now  be  made  in  consequence. 

But  the  Committee  on  Military  Afi'airs  have  so  prepared  the 
measure  that  the  mode  of  disposing  of  officers  rendered  super- 
numerary thereby  is  in  one  section ;  and  if  the  House  choose  to 
make  a  diff'erent  disposition  of  them,  it  can  be  done  by  chan- 
ging that  one  section.  The  settlement  of  the  question  involved 
in  that  section  will  require  no  change  in  the  other  sections. 
Let  it  be  remembered  that  the  reduction  proposed  is  prospect- 
ive, and  not  necessarily  immediate;  for  it  is  placed  in  the 
hands  of  the  President  to  make  the  reduction  as  rapidly  as 
the  necessities  of  the  public  service  will  permit.  It  is  not  cer- 
tain, therefore,  that  any  officers  now  in  the  service  will  be  ren- 
dered supernumerary  by  the  President's  administration  of  this 
law,  though  they  may  be ;  but  it  is  certain  that  it  will  before 
very  long  bring  the  army  down  to  a  much  smaller  organization 
than  the  present  one. 

The  committee  have  proposed   that  the  reduction  shall  be 

made  in  two  ways.     First,  that  no  further  promotions  shall  be 

>  Mr.  BuUer. 


THE  REDUCTION  OF  THE  ARMY.  423 

made  in  any  grade  until  the  aggregate  of  all  the  officers  of  that 
grade  shall  fall  below  the  number  provided  for ;  and,  secondly, 
that  no  further  appointments  of  officers  from  without,  and  no 
further  enlistment  of  private  soldiers,  shall  be  made  until  the 
army  has  been  reduced  below  the  limit  fixed.  I  will  discuss 
the  merits  of  this  proposition  briefly,  and  appeal  to  the  House 
to  decide  upon  its  justice  and  propriety. 

And,  first,  what  is  the  principle  on  which  the  government 
has  hitherto  acted?  I  believe  I  am  entirely  justified  by  history 
when  I  say  that  the  principle  of  this  section  is  the  settled  rule 
of  the  government  in  regard  to  the  army,  the  navy,  and  the 
marine  corps,  and  has  been  the  rule  for  nearly  half  a  century. 
I  do  not  say  that  the  rule  has  never  been  otherwise,  but  I  do 
say  there  have  been  few,  if  any,  exceptions  to  it  in  our  recent 
history;  the  military,  naval,  and  marine  peace  establishments 
have  not  been  reduced  by  musters  out,  except  for  personal 
cause. 

I  do  not  take  the  ground  that,  merely  because  a  man  is  in 
the  military  service,  we  are  to  make  him  forever  an  officer,  nor 
that  he  is  better  than  other  people ;  but  I  do  maintain  that  this 
section  is  based  on  a  rule  long  maintained  by  the  government, 
and  it  has  at  least  this  ground  of  defence,  that  when  men  go 
into  the  military  peace  establishment  they  do  so  in  view  of  all 
the  conditions  of  that  service.  They  agree  to  take  a  salary  far 
less,  in  many  instances,  than  the  salaries  they  might  obtain  in 
civil  life,  because  of  the  compensating  considerations  connected 
with  the  service ;  —  these,  for  example :  that  if  they  become  dis- 
abled in  the  line  of  duty,  they  are  under  the  protection  of  the. 
pension  laws ;  that  if  they  grow  old  in  faithful  service,  they  are 
entitled  to  be  retired  with  a  small  fixed  salary  for  life ;  and  if 
they  die  in  the  line  of  their  duty,  their  families  will  enjoy  the  ben- 
efit of  the  pension  laws.  On  these  conditions,  with  these  pros- 
pects before  them,  men  have  for  many  years  been  entering  the 
military  peace  establishment,  and  accepting  banishment  in  the 
Western  wilderness.  It  may  be  that  the  principle  is  not  a 
sound  one;  it  may  be  that  our  fathers  settled  it  unwisely;  it 
may  be  that  our  policy  in  regard  to  both  the  army  and  the  navy 
has  been  wrong;  but  it  is  a  fact  that  this  is  the  settled  prin- 
ciple, and  that,  with  this  understanding  of  the  case,  men  have 
accepted  and  are  now  holding  commissions  in  the  peace  estab- 
lishment.    The  Committee  on  Military  Affairs  have  thought  it 


424  THE  REDUCTION  OF  THE  ARMY. 

I 

wise  to  follow  the  old  rule,  to  stand  by  the  established  prece- 
dents, and  they  have  reported  accordingly. 

Let  me  state  another  view  of  the  case.  Suppose  we  should 
at  once  muster  out  these  officers;  what  would  follow?  In  six 
months  there  would  occur  in  the  new  army  fifty  or  sixty  vacan- 
cies, and  in  the  course  of  a  year  at  least  one  hundred.  How 
will  you  fill  these  vacancies?  You  must  either  reappoint  these 
men  with  lower  rank  than  they  held  before,  or  you  must  ap- 
point new  and  untried  men  to  fill  their  places ;  when,  if  you 
had  waited  a  short  time,  the  reduction  would  be  accomplished, 
the  necessity  of  new  appointments  obviated,  experienced  offi- 
cers retained  in  the  army,  and  no  express  or  implied  obligation 
broken.  I  will  not  place  this  proposition  on  so  low  a  ground 
as  that  we  propose  to  keep  these  men  in  the  army  merely  for 
the  purpose  of  feeding  them.  I  will  not  insult  them  by  putting 
them  in  the  attitude  of  beggars.  They  can  afford  to  suffer 
wrong  from  us  much  better  than  we  can  afford  to  inflict  it  upon 
them.  But,  sir,  theyyare  at  this  very  time  employed  in  impor- 
tant and  perilous  duties ;  we  are  in  the  midst  of  an  Indian  war ; 
and  a  large  portion  of  our  army  is  still  required  in  the  South 
to  maintain  the  public  peace.  When  faithful  officers  in  the 
unreconstructed  States  are  bearing  the  reproaches  and  scorn  of 
unrepentant  rebels,  and  suffering  in  the  name  of  the  republic 
the  indignity  of  those  who  hate  it,  their  position  will  be  a  most 
wretched  one  if  to  the  contempt  of  their  enemies  should  now 
be  added  the  neglect  and  injustice  of  their  friends.  For  one,  I 
am  not  willing,  either  by  speech  or  by  silence,  to  give  any 
.countenance  to  such  treatment  of  the  officers  of  the  army  as 
they  received  in  this  House  a  few  days  since,  when  the  member 
from  New  York  City*  used  this  language  concerning  them: 
*•  Our  avenues  and  streets  are  filled  with  generals  and  major- 
generals  and  captains  and  colonels  drawing  full  pay,  while  the 
poor  tax-payer  is  overburdened  with  unnecessary  taxation, 
wrung  from  him  for  the  purpose  of  supporting  these  idle  vaga- 
bonds, who  are  so  well  paid,  and  do  nothing."  ^ 

It  may  become  him  who  never  had  any  sympathy  with  the 
army  when  it  was  engaged  in  putting  down  the  rebellion  waged 
by  his  friends,  to  call  our  officers  **  vagabonds  " ;  but  it  does 
not  become  this  House  to  indorse  by  its  action  so  unworthy  a 
sentiment. 

1  Mr.  Wood  ^  Congressional  Globe,  February  5,  1869,  P-  9^7' 


THE  REDUCTION  OF  THE  ARMY.  425 

I  beg  gentlemen  not  to  forget  that  both  the  Secretary  of  War 
and  the  General-in-Chief  of  the  Army  declare  that  we  ought  not 
to  make  any  immediate  reduction  of  the  army.  But  the  Mili- 
tary Committee  think  we  ought  to  provide  for  a  prospective 
reduction,  and  they  have  framed  their  measure  with  the  view  of 
making  that  prospective  reduction  as  rapid  as  the  necessities  of 
the  service  will  permit;  but  even  if  it  keep  in  the  service  a 
few  officers  more  than  are  absolutely  necessary,  the  committee 
believe  it  just  to  stand  by  the  old  rule  which  has  been  followed 
for  so  many  years. 

And  now  let  me  sum  up,  in  brief,  the  results  of  the  proposed 
legislation.  '  It  does  not  command  an  instant  reduction  of  the 
army,  and  mustering  out  of  officers  and  enlisted  men ;  but  it 
does  command  the  President  to  make  the  reduction  as  rapidly 
as,  in  his  judgment,  the  necessities  of  the  service  will  permit,  and 
to  proceed  with  it  until  the  limit  fixed  by  Congress  is  reached. 
What  is  that  limit?  We  propose  to  provide  that  there  shall  be 
a  reduction  of  fifteen  regiments  of  infantry,  and  that  hereafter 
no  enlistments  shall  be  made  until  all  the  regiments  shall  have 
fallen  below  the  minimum  now  authorized  by  law.  Accord- 
ingly, the  President  will  not  be  allowed  to  keep  in  the  army  at 
any  time  more  than  about  thirty  thousand  men.  It  may  be 
less;  it  cannot  be  more.  By  the  consolidation  of  the  staff 
departments  as  proposed,  we  provide  for  a  reduction  of  six 
hundred  and  thirty-eight  commissioned  officers.  There  are 
now  not  quite  three  thousand.  It  will  be  a  reduction  of  nearly 
one  fourth  of  the  total  number  of  commissioned  officers.  The 
bill  proposes  to  abolish  the  offices  of  General  and  Lieutenant- 
General  on  the  occurrence  of  the  first  vacancy  in  each,  to 
reduce  the  number  of  major-generals  to  four,  and  of  brigadier- 
generals  to  six.  I  am  aware  that  many  personal  considerations 
enter  into  this  feature  of  the  bill.  I  need  not  say  how  willing 
the  committee  would  be  to  leave  the  honor  of  promotion  to  the 
higher  positions  of  General  and  Lieutenant-General  open  to 
some  of  the  distinguished  and  deserving  officers  now  holding 
the  commission  of  Major-General.  We  yield  to  none  in  admira- 
tion and  gratitude  for  their  distinguished  services ;  but  we  be- 
lieve the  two  positions  referred  to  were  created  as  special  marks 
of  personal  favor,  and  were  not  intended  by  Congress  as  per- 
manent grades  in  the  army,  though  the  language  of  the  statutes 
appears  to  make  them  such. 


426  TEM  REDUCTION  OF  THE  ARMY. 

Now,  Mr.  Speaker,  in  the  few  minutes  left  me  I  desire  to  call 
the  attention  of  the  House  and  the  country  to  the  history  of 
the  relation  which  Congress  has  sustained  to  the  army.  The 
past  is  especially  instructive  on  this  subject  What  writer  of 
history  does  not  know  and  regret  the  fact  that  our  Revolution- 
ary fathers  stained  the  noble  record  of  their  early  legislation 
by  the  manner  in  which  tibey  treated  the  army  of  the  Revolu* 
tion  after  the  War  of  Independence  had  closed  ?  No  man  can 
read  the  history  of  that  transaction  without  the  most  painful 
regret  But,  sir,  though  there  may  have  been  no  justification, 
yet  there  was  an  excuse  for  their  conduct  which  we  cannot 
plead  to-day.  They  lived  not  far  removed  from  the  days  of 
military  usurpation ;  they  remembered  Cromwell ;  they  remem- 
bered the  times  when  a  standing  army  was  dangerous  to  lib- 
erty ;  and  so  great  was  their  love  of  liberty  that,  in  her  sacred 
name,  they  neglected,  cruelly  neglected,  the  noble  army  which 
made  liberty  on  this  continent  possible  The  volume  of  history 
which  I  hold  in  my  hand  portrays  the  dismissal  of  that  heroic 
army  after  the  battle  had  been  fought  and  won.  I  quote  a 
passage. 

"To  the  officers,  Congress,  after  much  discussion  and  delays  that 
savored  equally  of  impolicy  and  ingratitude,  had  voted  half-pay  for  life. 
It  is  painful  to  think  of  the  long  opposition  to  the  claims  of  men  who, 
besides  risking  their  lives  in  battle  and  their  health  in  the  hardships  of 
camp,  were  necessarily  cut  off  during  their  most  vigorous  years  from 
every  other  method  of  providing  for  themselves  or  their  families.  To 
some  minds  the  army  seems  always  to  have  presented  itself  as  an  object 
of  apprehension.  In  strengthening  it  against  the  enemy  they  were  still 
disturbed  by  the  fear  of  strengthening  it  against  the  people ;  forgetting 
that  the  men  who  composed  it  came  directly  from  the  body  of  citizens, 
and  must  sooner  or  later  return  to  it,  they  feared  that  the  ties  by  which 
long  service  would  bind  them  to  their  officers  might  prove  stronger  than 
the  ties  by  which  they  were  bound  to  their  families.  History  troubled 
them  with  visions  of  Caesars  and  Cromwells,  and,  like  too  many  who  mis- 
apply her  lessons,  they  failed  to  see  how  utterly  unlike  were  *  the  Thirteen 
Colonies '  to  the  dregs  of  Romulus  or  the  England  of  Charles  the  First. 
They  erred  where  sensible  men  daily  err,  by  applying  to  one  class  of 
circumstances  the  principles  which  they  have  deduced  from  a  class  radi- 
cally different 

"  It  was  in  a  great  measure  this  feeling,  combined  with  a  morbid  at- 
tachment to  State  rights,  or  rather  an  imperfect  conception  of  the  vital 
importance  of  a  real  Union,  that  delayed  the  fprmation  of  an  army  for 


THE  REDUCTION  OF  THE  ARMY,  427 

the  war  till  the  moment  for  forming  it  cheaply  and  readily  was  passed. 
It  was  this  feeling  which,  under  the  plausible  show  of  strengthening  the 
dependence  of  the  army  upon  Congress,  kept  the  officers  in  much 
feverish  anxiety  about  the  rules  of  promotion.  It  was  this  feeling  which 
led  John  Adams  to  talk  seriously  about  an  annual  appointment  of  gen- 
erals, and  both  the  Adamses  to  draw  nigh  to  Gates  as  a  man  who,  in 
some  impossible  contingency,  was  to  be  set  up  against  Washington. 

"  It  is  not  surprising,  therefore,  that  to  minds  tinged  with  these  sus- 
picions the  idea  of  half-pay  for  life  should  seem  fraught  with  serious 
danger,  or  that  the  men  who  entertained  them  should  have  opposed, 
as  an  invasion  of  popular  rights,  what  in  the  light  of  impartial  history 
seems  a  mere  act  of  justice.  It  was  not  till  the  terrible  winter  of  Valley 
Forge  had  been  passed  through,  and  when  Washington  saw  himself  upon 
the  point  of  losing  many  of  his  best  and  most  experienced  officers,  that 
a  promise  of  half- pay  for  seven  years  to  all  who  should  serve  through 
the  war  was  wrung  from  a  reluctant  Congress.  It  took  two  years  more 
of  urgent  exhortation  and  stem  experience  to  overcome  the  last  scruples, 
and  secure  a  vote  of  half-pay  for  life.  ....  On  the  3d  [November, 
1783],  they  were  disbanded.  There  was  no  formal  leave-taking.  Each 
regiment,  each  company,  went  as  it  chose.  Men  who  had  stood  side  by 
side  in  battle,  who  had  shared  the  same  tent  in  summer,  the  same  hut 
in  winter,  parted,  never  to  meet  again.  Some  still  had  homes,  and 
therefore  definite  hopes.  But  hundreds  knew  not  whither  to  go.  Their 
four  months*  pay,  the  only  part  of  their  country's  indebtedness  which 
they  had  received,  was  not  sufficient  to  buy  them  food  or  shelter  long, 
even  when  it  had  not  been  necessarily  pledged  before  it  came  into  their 
hands.  They  had  lost  the  habits  of  domestic  life,  as  they  had  long  fore- 
gone its  comforts.  Strong  men  were  seen  weeping  like  children ;  men 
who  had  borne  cold  and  hunger  in  winter  camps  and  faced  death  on 
the  battle-field  shrank  from  this  new  form  of  trial.  For  a  few  days  the 
streets  and  taverns  were  crowded.  For  weeks  soldiers  were  to  be  seen 
on  every  road,  or  lingering  bewildered  about  public  places,  like  men  who 
were  at  a  loss  what  to  do  with  themselves.  There  were  no  ovations  for 
them  as  they  came  back,  toil-worn  before  their  time,  to  the  places  which 
had  once  known  them ;  no  ringing  of  bells,  no  eager  opening  of  hospi- 
table doors.  The  country  was  tired  of  the  war,  tired  of  the  sound  of  fife 
and  drum,  anxious  to  get  back  to  sowing  and  reaping,  to  buying  and 
selling,  to  town  meetings  and  general  elections.  Congress  was  no  longer 
king,  no  longer  the  recognized  expression  of  a  common  want,  —  the  ven- 
erated embodiment  of  a  common  hope.     Political  ambition  looked  for 

advancement  nearer  home It  was  long  before  the  country  awoke 

to  a  consciousness  of  its  ingratitude  towards  these  brave  men."  ^ 

1  Greene's  Historical  View  of  the  American  Revolution,  pp.  238-244  (Boston, 
1865). 


428  THE  REDUCTION  OF  THE   ARMY. 


Many  years  later,  one  of  the  noblest  speeches  that  Daniel 
Webster  ever  pronounced  was  in  advocating  the  passage  of  a 
law  to  do  tardy  justice  by  granting  pensions  to  the  survivors 
of  the  Revolution. 

After  the  war  of  1812,  the  size  of  tlie  army,  the  tenure  of 
office  in  it,  and  the  mode  of  reduction,  were  again  the  subject 
of  discussion.  The  same  points  which  arc  now  made  were 
urged  then ;  and  after  one  able  and  protracted  debate  the  peace 
establishment  was  so  adjusted  as  to  avoid  almost  wholly  the 
mustering  out  of  deserving  officers.  In  1820,  during  this  de- 
bate, the  Secretary  of  War  made  a  report  to  Congress,  in  which 
he  set  forth  the  principles  which  have  finally  become  the  settled 
policy  of  the  government.  The  subject  was  so  ably  handled 
that  I  cannot  do  better  than  quote  a  few  paragraphs,  which  state 
what  should  be  the  basis  of  the  peace  establishment. 

"  To  give  such  an  organi^ration  the  leading  principles  in  its  formation 
ought  to  be,  that  at  the  commencement  of  hostilities  there  should  be 
nothing  either  to  new-model  or  to  create.  The  only  difference,  conse- 
quently, between  the  peace  and  the  war  formation  of  the  army  ought 
tu  be  in  the  increased  magnitude  of  the  latter,  and  the  oniy  change  in 
passing  from  the  former  to  the  latter  should  consist  in  giving  to  it  the 
augmentation  which  will  then  be  necessary 

"  The  next  principle  to  be  observed  is,  that  the  organization  ought 
to  be  such  as  to  induce  in  time  of  peace  citizens  of  adequate  talents 
and  respectability  of  character  to  enter  and  remain  in  the  military  ser- 
vice of  the  country,  so  that  the  government  may  have  officers  at  its  com- 
mand who  to  the  requisite  experience  would  add  the  public  confidence. 
The  correctness  of  this  principle  can  scarcely  be  doubted,  for  surely  if  it 
is  worth  having  an  army  at  all  it  is  worth  having  it  well  commanded 

"  Every  prudent  individual,  in  selecting  his  course  of  life,  must  be  gov- 
erned, making  some  allowance  for  the  natural  disposition,  essentially  by 
the  reward  which  attends  the  various  pursuits  open  to  him.  Under  our 
free  institutions  every  one  is  left  free  to  make  his  selection,  and  most  of 
the  pursuits  of  life,  followed  with  industry  and  skill,  lead  to  opulence  and 
respectability.  The  profession  of  arms,  in  the  well-established  state  of 
things  which  exists  among  us,  has  no  reward  but  what  is  attached  to  it 
by  law,  and  if  that  should  be  inferior  to  other  professions  it  would  be 
idle  to  suppose  individuals  possessed  of  the  necessary  talents  and  char- 
acter would  be  induced  to  enter  iL  A  mere  sense  of  duty  ought  not 
and  cannot  be  safely  relied  on.  It  supposes  that  individuals  would  be 
actuated  by  a  stronger  sense  of  duty  towards  the  government  than  the 
latter  towards  them 


THE  REDUCTION  OF  THE  ARMY.  429 

"  No  position  connected  with  the  organization  of  the  peace  establish- 
ment is  susceptible  of  being  more  rigidly  proved  than  that  the  propor- 
tion of  its  officers  to  the  rank  and  file  ought  to  be  greater  than  in  a  war 
establishment.  It  results  immediately  from  a  position,  the  truth  of  which 
cannot  be  fairly  doubted,  and  which  I  have  attempted  to  illustrate  in  the 
preliminary  remarks,  that  the  leading  object  of  a  regular  army  in  time  of 
peace  ought  to  be  to  enable  the  country  to  meet  with  honor  and  safety, 
particularly  at  the  commencement  of  war,  the  dangers  incident  to  that 
state ;  to  effect  this  object,  as  far  as  practicable,  the  peace  organization 
ought,  as  has  been  shown,  to  be  such  that  in  passing  to  a  state  of  war 
there  should  be  nothing  either  to  new-model  or  to  create,  and  that  the 
difference  between  that  and  the  war  organization  ought  to  be  simply  in 
the  greater  magnitude  of  the  latter 

"  Economy  is  certainly  a  very  high  political  virtue,  intimately  con- 
nected with  the  power  and  the  public  virtue  of  the  community.  In  mili- 
tary operations,  which,  under  the  best  management,  are  so  expensive,  it 
is  of  the  utmost  importance ;  but  by  no  propriety  of  language  can  that 
arrangement  be  called  economical  which,  in  order  that  our  military  estab- 
lishment in  peace  should  be  rather  less  expensive,  would,  regardless  of 
the  purposes  for  which  it  ought  to  be  maintained,  render  it  unfit  to  meet 
the  dangers  incident  to  a  state  of  war."  * 

I  am  content  to  stand  by  this  doctrine ;  and  guided  by  it,  the 
Committee  on  Military  Aflfairs  have  tried  to  accomplish  two 
things :  to  provide  for  a  very  large  reduction  of  the  expense  of 
the  army,  and  at  the  same  time  to  preserve  the  efficiency  and 
spirit  of  its  organization. 

1  Report  of  John  C.  Calhoun,  Secretary  of  War,  to  the  Speaker  of  the  House 
of  Representatives,  Dec,  12,  1820.  State  Papers,  Class  V.  (Military  Affairs),  Vol. 
II.  pp.  188-191. 


THE    SMITHSONIAN    INSTITUTION 

REMARKS  MADE  IN  THE  HOUSE  OF  REPRESENTATIVES. 

March  i,  1869. 


Mr.  Garfield  was  six  times  appointed  a  Regent  of  the  Smithsonian 
Institution,  —  in  1865,  1868,  1870,  1872,  1878,  and  1879.  He  is  on 
record  as  having  attended  ten  different  meetings  of  the  Board,  in  as 
many  different  years.  He  also  carefully  watched  over  the  interests  of 
the  Institution  in  the  House  of  Representatives.  March  i,  1869,  ^^ 
following  item  in  the  Miscellaneous  Appropriation  Bill  was  reached  : 
**  For  the  preservation  of  the  collections  of  the  exploring  and  surveying 
expeditions  of  the  government,  $4,000." 

Upon  this  Mr.  Garfield  made  the  following  remarks. 


MR.  CHAIRMAN,  —  I  move  to  amend  this  paragraph  by 
striking  out  four  thousand  dollars  and  inserting  ten 
thousand  dollars.  And  I  wish  briefly  to  call  the  attention  of 
the  Committee  of  the  Whole  to  the  facts  upon  which  I  base  my 
motion. 

In  1846,  when  the  Smithsonian  Institution  was  founded,  the 
government  of  the  United  States,  by  a  law  of  Congress,  trans- 
ferred to  that  Institution  all  the  articles  belonging  to  the  Mu- 
seum which  the  government  then  owned.  At  that  time  it  was 
costing  four  thousand  dollars  a  year  to  take  care  of  and  pre- 
serve those  articles.  Since  then  a  great  number  of  exploring 
expeditions  have  been  sent  out  by  the  government,  and  large 
additions  have  been  made  to  the  Museum ;  and  the  actual 
cost  of  keeping  and  taking  care  of  the  articles  which  the  gov- 
ernment now  owns  amounts  to  more  than  ten  thousand  dollars 
a  year.  Having  imposed  this  duty  upon  the  Smithsonian  Insti- 
tution, it  is  wrong  for  the  government  to  ask  that  Institution  to 


THE  SMITHSONIAN  INSTITUTION  43 1 

pay  six  thousand  dollars  out  of  its  own  fund,  —  donated  by  a 
foreigner  to  the  cause  of  science  in  this  country  —  for  the  care, 
preservation,  and  custody  of  government  property,  to  say  noth- 
ing of  the  use  of  the  building  for  that  purpose. 

Mr.  Maynard.  What  are  the  items  of  the  expenditure  for  that 
purpose?     It  certainly  is  not  all  for  personal  supervision. 

Only  so  far  as  the  Board  of  Regents  have  to  employ  persons 
to  take  care  of  these  things  and  see  that  they  are  properly 
guarded. 

I  have  here  a  memorial  of  the  Board  of  Regents,  of  which  I 
am  a  member.  It  is  signed  by  the  Chancellor  of  the  Institution, 
Chief  Justice  Chase,  and  by  the  Secretary  of  the  Institution, 
Professor  Henry.  Accompanying  that  is  a  detailed  statement 
of  the  expenses  of  the  National  Museum  for  the  year  1868.  I 
ask  the  attention  of  members  to  these  papers.*  It  will  be 
seen  that  the  total  expense  of  the  Museum  for  the  year  is 
$13,480.38.  In  addition  to  the  foregoing,  $125,000  has  been 
expended  since  the  fire  in  1865  on  that  part  of  the  building 
required  for  the  accommodation  of  the  Museum,  the  interest  on 
which,  at  six  per  cent,  would  be  $7,500  annually. 

The  bequest  to  found  this  Institution  was  made  by  a  for- 
eigner who  never  visited  the  United  States.  He  bequeathed 
his  fortune  with  unreserved  confidence  to  our  government  for 
the  advancement  of  science,  to  which  he  had  devoted  his  own 
life.  The  sacredness  of  the  trust  is  enhanced  by  the  fact  that 
it  was  accepted  after  the  death  of  him  by  whom  it  was  confided. 
The  only  indications  of  his  intentions  which  we  possess  are  ex- 
pressed in  the  terms  of  his  will.  It  therefore  became  of  the 
first  importance  that  the  import  of  these  terms  should  be  criti- 
cally analyzed,  and  the  logical  inference  from  them  faithfully 
observed.  The  whole  is  contained  in  these  few  and  explicit 
words:  "To  found  at  Washington,  under  the  name  of  the 
Smithsonian  Institution,  an  establishment  for  the  increase  and 
diffusion  of  knowledge  among  men."  These  terms  have  a 
strict  import,  and  are  susceptible  of  statement  in  two  definite 
propositions. 

First.  The  bequest  is  for  the  benefit  of  mankind ;  it  is  not 
to  be  confined  to  one  country  or  to  one  race,  but  is  for  all  men 
of  all  complexions. 

'  The  memorial  and  the  statement  of  the  expenses  of  the  Museum  for  the  year 
j863  are  found  in  the  Congressional  Globe  for  March  i,  1869,  P-  'Z^S* 


432  THE  SMITHSONIAN  INSTITUTION 

Second.  The  objects  of  the  Institution  are,  first,  to  increase, 
and,  secondly,  to  diffuse  knowledge  among  men ;  and  these  ob- 
jects should  not  be  confounded  with  each  other. 

Smithson's  will  makes  no  restriction  to  any  kind  of  knowl- 
edge :  hence,  every  branch  of  science  capable  of  advancement 
is  entitled  to  a  share  of  attention.     ^ 

Though  the  terms  of  the  will  are  explicit,  and  convey  precise 
ideas  to  those  who  are  acquainted  with  their  technical  signifi- 
cance, yet  to  the  public  generally  they  might  seem  to  admit 
of  a  greater  latitude  of  construction  than  has  been  put  upon 
them.  It  is,  therefore,  not  surprising  that  at  the  beginning 
improper  conceptions  of  the  nature  of  the  bequest  should  have 
been  entertained ;  or  that  Congress,  in  the  act  of  organization, 
should  direct  the  prosecution  of  objects  incompatible  with  the 
strict  interpretation  of  the  will,  or  that  it  should  impose  burdens 
upon  the  Institution  tending  materially  to  lessen  its  usefulness. 
The  principal  of  these  burdens  was  the  direction  to  provide  a 
building  on  an  ample  scale  to  accommodate  the  collections  of 
the  government,  consisting  of  all  the  specimens  of  nature  and 
art  then  in  the  city  of  Washington  belonging  to  the  govern- 
ment, or  that  might  thereafter  become  the  property  of  the 
government  by  exchange  or  otherwise. 

Though  the  majority  of  the  Board  of  Regents  did  not  consider 
the  expenditure  on  this  object  of  a  large  amount  of  the  income 
in  accordance  with  the  will  of  Smithson,  they  could  not  refuse 
to  obey  the  injunction  of  Congress ;  hence  they  proceeded  to 
erect  an  extensive  building  and  to  take  charge  of  the  Museum 
of  the  government.  The  cost  of  this  building,  which  at  first 
was  $325,000,  has  been  increased  to  $450,000  by  the  repair  of 
damages  caused  by  the  fire,  the  whole  of  which  has  been  de- 
frayed from  the  annual  income.  Notwithstanding  this  burden, 
the  Institution  has  achieved  a  reputation  as  wide  as  the  civilized 
world,  has  advanced  almost  every  branch  of  knowledge,  and  has 
presented  books  and  specimens  to  hundreds  of  institutions  and 
societies  in  this  country  and  abroad. 

It  is  not  a  mere  statistical  establishment,  as  many  may  sup- 
pose, supporting  a  corps  of  men  whose  only  duty  is  the  exhibi- 
tion of  the  articles  of  a  show  museum ;  but  a  living,  active 
organization,  that  has,  by  its  publications,  researches,  explora- 
tions, distribution  of  specimens,  and  exchanges,  vindicated  the 
intelligence  and  good  faith  of  the  government  in  administering 


THE  SMITHSONIAN  INSTITUTION  433 

a  fund  intended  for  the  good  of  the  whole  community  of  civil- 
ized men.  It  has  at  the  same  time  collected  a  library,  princi- 
pally of  the  transactions  and  proceedings  of  learned  societies, 
consisting  of  fifty  thousand  volumes ;  also  a  collection  of  en- 
gravings illustrative  of  the  early  history  and  progress  of  the  art, 
both  of  which  it  has  transferred  to  the  library  of  Congress.  It 
is  not  alone  the  present  value  of  the  books  which  it  has  placed 
in  the  possession  of  the  government,  but  also  that  of  the  perpet- 
ual continuation  of  the  several  series  contained  therein.  From 
its  first  organization  until  the  present  time,  the  Institution  has 
continued  to  render  important  service  to  the  government  by 
examining  and  reporting  on  scientific  questions  pertaining  to 
the  operations  of  the  different  departments;  and  it  is  not  too 
much  to  say  that,  in  this  way,  particularly  during  the  war,  it  has 
saved  the  United  States  many  millions  of  dollars. 

Let  me  say  one  word  more  before  leaving  this  subject.  As  I 
have  shown,  the  real  purpose  of  the  gift  of  Smithson,  which  the 
Board  of  Regents  have  tried  to  promote  as  well  as  they  could, 
was  to  extend  and  circulate  scientific  information ;  and  the  man- 
agement of  the  Institution  has  always  resisted  the  tendency  to 
keep  up  and  increase  this  Museum  at  the  expense  of  the  fund. 
Recently  the  Institution  has  given  over  to  the  library  of  Con- 
gress a  collection  of  fifty  thousand  volumes,  constituting  proba- 
bly the  most  perfect  scientific  library  in  the  world.  But  we  are 
still  charged  as  an  Institution  with  the  cost  of  this  rapidly 
increasing  Museum.  Now,  the  Regents  would  be  glad  if  Con- 
gress would  take  this  Museum  off  their  hands,  and  provide 
otherwise  for  its  care.  It  is  a  charge  imposed  upon  the  Institu- 
tion by  law,  —  a  charge  which  it  never  sought  and  is  not  desir- 
ous to  retain.  At  the  time  when  this  Museum  was  first  placed 
in  the  custody  of  the  Institution,  it  cost  but  four  thousand  dol- 
lars a  year  to  keep  it  in  the  Patent-Office.  Now  its  care  costs 
three  times  that  amount.  I  hope,  therefore,  that  the  committee 
will  vote  ten  thousand  dollars  for  this  purpose,  instead  of  four 
thousand. 

VOL.  I.  28 


THE  MEDICAL  AND    SURGICAL   HISTORY 

OF  THE   REBELLION. 

REMARKS  MADE  IN  THE  HOUSE  OF  REPRESENTATIVES, 

Ma&ch  a,  1869. 


The  foDqwing  remarks  were  made  upon  a  joint  resolution  to' print  at 
the  government  printing-house  five  thousand  copies  of  the  First  Part  of 
the  Medical  and  Suigical  History  of  the  Rebellion,  compiled  by  die  Sur- 
geon-General, and  five  thousand  copies  of  the  Medical  Statbtics  of  the 
Plrovost-Mazshal's  Bureau. 


MR.  SPEAKER,  —  I  desire  to  occupy  the  floor  for  a  few 
moments,  and  then  I  will  yield  to  the  gentleman  from 
Massachusetts.^  I  hope  the  mere  question  as  to  what  committee 
of  the  House  this  bill  ought  to  go  to  will  not  divert  the  minds 
of  members  from  the  merits  of  the  bill  itself  I  am  quite  as 
willing  that  my  friend,  the  chairman  of  the  Committee  on  Print- 
ing,^ shall  have  charge  of  it  as  any  other  gentleman,  only  I  want 
the  House  to  act  upon  the  bill,  and  I  took  charge  of  it  only  be- 
cause it  is  so  directly  related  to  the  war  and  the  army  as  to 
come  properly  into  the  hands  of  the  Committee  on  Military 
*  Affairs. 

As  to  the  cost  of  the  printing,  I  have  here  a  communication 
from  the  public  printer,  as  reported  in  the  debate  in  the  Senate, 
in  which  he  says :  — 

"The  medical  and  surgical  history  of  the  war  will  be  composed  of 
three  parts.  The  first  part  contains  two  volumes  of  nine  hundred  pages 
each,  and  is  now  ready  for  the  printer.  The  engravings  for  it  have  been 
obtained  under  an  appropriation  made  by  Congress,  and  are  now  in  the 

1  Mr.  Butler.  2  Mr.  Laflin. 


MEDICAL   HISTORY  OF  THE  REBELLION.     435 

Surgeon -General's  office,  ready  to  be  placed  in  the  books  when  the  text 
is  printed.  It  is  this  first  part  alone  [that  is,  the  first  of  the  three 
parts]  which  the  Surgeon-"General  wishes  to  have  printed  at  present. 
The  cost  of  printing  and  binding  will  be  as  follows  :  —  Paper  and  printing 
five  thousand  copies,  two  volumes  of  nine  hundred  pages  each,  ^24,625  ; 
binding  the  same  in  cloth,  $2,800.     Total,  $27,425." 

We  have  here  a  definite  statement  of  the  actual  cost  of  the 
publication  of  two  volumes  as  estimated  by  the  public  printer, 
being  the  first  third  of  the  whole  Medical  History  of  the  War. 

And  now,  Mr.  Speaker,  I  desire  to  say  that  in  the  annals  of 
medical  history  there  is  not  anything  more  creditable  to  a 
nation  than  the  record  of  our  medical  operations  during  the 
war.  Wherever  a  knowledge  of  the  work  of  our  surgeons  has 
gone,  it  has  received  the  most  flattering  commendations  of  pro- 
fessional and  scientific  men.  In  the  course  of  an  inquiry  before 
the  Committee  on  Military  Affairs,  it  was  ascertained  that  dur- 
ing the  whole  war,  notwithstanding  the  great  number  of  sick 
and  wounded,  and  the  enormous  preparations  for  their  care,  — 
our  comparatively  new  ambulance  system  and  our  vast  outlay 
for  medical  supplies,  —  the  average  cost  of  medical  attendance 
upon  our  soldiers  was  but  ten  dollars  a  year;  and  that,  I  ven- 
ture to  say,  is  less  than  the  cost  of  medical  attendance  for  any 
other  army  in  modern  times. 

This  resulted  from  the  fact  that  we  have  a  most  admirable 
medical  organization.  And,  sir,  from  the  beginning  of  the  war 
to  its  close  the  scientific  gentlemen  who  had  charge  of  the  medi- 
cal department  of  our  army  preserved  all  the  most  remarka- 
ble medical  and  surgical  results  of  the  war.  We  have  to-day 
in  this  city,  filling  the  old  Ford's  Theatre,  probably  the  most 
perfect  and  valuable  medical  museum  in  the  world.  Profes- 
sional men  and  representatives  of  learned  societies  at  home  and 
abroad  concur  in  pronouncing  it  the  most  valuable  medical 
museum  ever  yet  collected.  But  the  materials  now  ready  for 
publication  are  even  more  valuable  than  the  museum. 

I  hold  in  my  hand  the  report  of  a  recent  meeting  of  a  leading 
medical  association  in  Paris,  in  which  the  medical  results  of  the 
two  great  wars  in  modern  times  are  discussed,  —  the  Crimean 
war,  including  both  the  French  and  English  armies,  and  our 
own  late  war.  The  rates  of  mortality  resulting  from  capital 
operations  in  the  three  armies  are  exhibited  in  the  following 
table. 


EacMtAnqy. 

Am.  Union  Aimy. 

Franck  Anny< 

Mortal.  . 

MfirtaL 

Mortd. 

•    33-3 

39-2 

61.7 

•    245 

21.2 

55-5 

.      S-o 

16.5 

45.2 

.    lOO.O 

85.7 

100.0 

.    64.0 

64.4 

91.8 

•    57.1 

55.^ 

91.3 

.    35.6 

26.0 

71.9 

436       MEDICAL  HISTORY  OF  THE  REBELLION. 
^ The  rates  in  the  three  armies  are:  — 

Disarticalations  at  the  shoulder 
AmputatioDs  of  the  arm 
Amputations  of  the  forearm 
Disarticulations  at  the  hip 
Amputations  ^  the  th^   . 
Disaiticulations  at  the  knee 
Amputations  of  the  leg 

40.2  33.9  72.8 

''  In  thig^  amputations,  then,  ndiile  the  American  and  the  British  lose 
64  in  100,  the  French  lose  91.8.  The  former  lose  but  26  per  cent  in 
kg  amputations,  and  we  lose  71.9.  Such  a  result  is  heart-rending ;  it  is 
essential  to  discuss  the  cause  of  such  a  state  of  things,  for  the  wel^ure  of 
fVench  soldiers  and  the  honor  of  French  surgeiy  demand  imperious^ 
that  they  be  removed." 

It  will  be  seen  from  this,  that  while  the  average  mortality  in 
the  British  army  was  40.2  per  cent,  and  in  the  French  army 
72.8  per  centi  in  our  army  it  was  only  33.9  per  cent, — vastly 
less  than  in  either  of  the  armies  of  those  two  great  nations. 

In  this  report  of  the  Surgical  Society  of  Paris,  with  the  whole 
record  of  the  Crimean  war  before  them  as  reported  by  the  med- 
ical authorities  of  Great  Britain  and  France,  and  with  only  a 
preliminary  report  bearing  the  modest  title  of  a  "  Circular " 
from  the  Medical  Department  of  the  Army  of  the  United  States, 
I  find  the  following  testimony  to  the  value  of  the  "  Circular" :  — 

"  One  might  be  astonished  to  see  these  *  Circulars '  of  the  Surgeon- 
General  referred  to,  in  comparison  with  the  voluminous  and  formal  re- 
ports of  the  British  and  French  armies,  since  they  were  printed  simply  as 
a  preface  to  the  general  medical  and  surgical  history  of  our  war,  and  are 
modestly  entitled  by  the  Surgeon-General  *  Reports  on  the  Extent  and 
Nature  of  the  Materials  available  for  the  Preparation  of  a  Medical  and 
Surgical  History  of  the  Rebellion.'  Yet  M.  Lefort  only  concurs  with  the 
other  leading  European  reviewers  in  his  estimate  of  these  well-known 
documents,  of  which  the  chief  medical  quarterly,  the  British  and  Foreign 
Medico-Chirurgical  Review,  declares  that,  professedly  only  a  preliminary 
survey,  *  it  will  itself  long  form  an  authentic  book  of  reference  both  to 
the  military  and  civil  surgeon.'  " 

Even  a  mere  risumi  of  the  n^aterials  in  our  possession  is 
looked  upon  as  of  more  value  than  the  completed  record,  both 


MEDICAL  HISTORY  OF  THE  REBELLION.      437 

French  and  English,  of  the  medical  results  of  the  Crimean  war. 
I  cannot  leave  this  report  without  quoting  one  other  passage,  in 
which  the  comparison  is  still  further  carried  out. 

"  The  English  surgeons  kept  their  wounded  at  their  field  hospitals,  at 
Balaklava,  at  the  Monastery  of  St.  George,  and  only  sent  them  to  their 
hospitals  on  the  Dardanelles  when  they  were  able  to  be  moved.  Why 
were  our  wounded  so  httle  cared  for?  M.  Chenu  replies  that  the  French 
army  had  six  times  the  effective  force  of  the  English.  Then  the  neces- 
sities of  the  former  were  six  times  greater.  It  is  a  culpable  want  of 
foresight  to  send  a  numerous  army  far  from  the  mother  country,  with 
inadequate  supplies.  The  question  reduces  itself  to  this  :  Now,  who  was 
responsible  ?  Was  it  our  army  surgeons  ?  Surely  not.  Eighty-two  offi- 
cers of  the  French  medical  staff  laid  down  their  lives  in  consequence  of 
epidemics  brought  about  by  maladministration  and  the  neglect  of  hygi- 
enic precautions,  —  dangers  encountered  by  the  entire  medical  staff  with 
that  courage  and  abnegation  which  everywhere  characterize  the  true 
physician.  But,  alas  !  in  France  the  medical  service  of  the  army  is  not 
directed  by  medical  men,  and  such  men  as  MM.  Levy,  Larre,  Seriv^, 
and  Legouest  have  no  voice  in  the  arrangements  indispensable  to  the 
physical  well-being  of  our  soldiers.  When  the  medical  director  of  the 
Army  of  the  East  wished  to  erect  a  few  pavilion  field-hospitals,  he  had 
for  weeks  to  exhaust  his  patience  in  demonstrating  their  necessity  to 
intelligent,  well-meaning  men,  who  were  quite  incapable  of  comprehend- 
ing his  reasoning,  and  who  followed  his  advice  or  not,  according  to  their 
personal  prejudices  or  predilections. 

"  Happier  than  the  French  army,  the  Americans  have  no  system  of 
military  *  intendants ' ;  and  though  their  medical  ofificers  had  to  grapple 
with  difficulties  very  much  greater  than  those  we  encountered  in  the 
Crimea ;  although  their  theatre  of  war  embraced  a  territory  larger  than 
the  whole  of  France  ;  although  in  the  first  two  years  only  of  the  war  the 
enormous  aggregate  of  143,318  wounded  was  one  of  the  problems  with 
which  they  had  to  deal,  —  the  American  military  surgeons,  left  to  them- 
selves, free  to  display  all  their  energy,  to  avail  themselves  of  all  oppor- 
tunities, to  profit  by  their  special  training,  found  means  to  open  to  the 
sick  and  wounded  soldiers  two  hundred  and  ^w^  general  hospitals,  con- 
taining 136,894  beds;  to  tend  these  so  that  they  lost  but  thirty-three 
per  cent  of  those  operated  on ;  whereas,  French  surgeons  under  the 
tutelage  of  the  military  administrative  officers  had  at  their  command  in 
the  Crimea  inadecjuate  hospitals  and  supplies  which  were  a  mockery, 
and  lost  seventy- two  per  cent  of  the  patients  operated  on. 

"  And  yet  France  was  supposed  to  possess,  before  the  campaign  be- 
gan, a  complete  medical  organization  and  sufficient  supplies,  while  in 
America  it  was  necessary  to  organize  everything." 


438       MEDICAL  HISTORY  OF  THE  REBELLION. 

Now,  Mr.  Speaker,  I  desire  to  say  that,  when  our  nation  oc- 
cupies so  proud  a  position, — when  we  have  in  our  hands  the 
most  priceless  materials  that  the  history  of  science  has  ever  af- 
forded on  this  subject,  —  when  we  are  in  a  condition  to  exhibit 
what  will  be  of  more  value  to  the  world,  and  of  more  credit  to 
the  American  medical  profession  than  any  other  document  ever 
possessed  by  any  nation  in  the  world,  —  it  seems  to  me  small 
business  for  us  to  chaffer  about  the  matter  of  a  few  hundred 
dollars  of  expense.  Were  the  cost  of  publication  all  that  gen- 
tlemen suppose,  I  should  be  in  favor  of  printing  this  work. 
Even  far-sighted  economy  demands  this  expenditure.  We  have 
already,  by  the  authority  given  by  Congress,  ordered  the  plates ; 
they  are  engraved  and  paid  for,  ready  to  be  set  up  with  the 
type.  The  materials  are  all  here,  and  a  little  over  twenty-seven 
thousand  dollars  will  give  us  five  thousand  copies  of  one  third 
of  the  whole  Of  this  magnificent  work.  I  shall  regret  it  more 
than  I  can  express,  if  this  Congress  should  omit  the  opportu- 
nity to  give  this  work  the  publicity  which  it  deserves,  and  take 
to  our  country  the  credit  which  it  has  so  justly  earned. 


STRENGTHENING    THE    PUBLIC    CREDIT. 

REMARKS  MADE  IN  THE  HOUSE  OF  REPRESENTATIVES, 

March  3,  1869. 


Mr.  Garfield  was  one  of  the  early  advocates,  if  not  indeed  the 
originator,  of  the  measure  for  legalizing  gold  contracts.     February  10, 

1868,  he  introduced  a  bill  for  that  purpose.  This  bill  became  part  of  a 
more  comprehensive  measure,  viz.  Mr.  Schenck*s  bill  of  January  20, 

1869,  "To  Strengthen  the  Public  Credit,  and  Relating  to  Gold  Con- 
tracts.'* This  bill,  variously  amended,  passed  both  houses  at  the  close 
of  the  session ;  but  the  President  gave  it  a  "  pocket  veto."  Reintroduced 
at  the  first  session  of  the  Forty-first  Congress,  it  promptly  passed  both 
houses,  and  was  the  first  act  approved  by  President  Grant,  March  18, 
1869.     It  may  be  fitly  transcribed  here  :  — 

"  Be  it  enacted  by  the  Senate  and  House  of  Representatives  of  the 
United  States  of  America,  in  Congress  assembled.  That,  in  order  to 
remove  any  doubt  as  to  the  purpose  of  the  government  to  discharge  all 
just  obligations  to  the  public  creditors,  and  to  settle  conflicting  questions 
and  interpretations  of  the  laws  by  virtue  of  which  such  obligations  have 
been  contracted,  it  is  hereby  provided  and  declared  that  the  faith  of  the 
United  States  is  solemnly  pledged  to  the  payment  in  coin,  or  its  equiva- 
lent, of  all-  the  obligations  of  the  United  States  not  bearing  interest, 
known  as  United  States  notes,  and  of  all  the  interest-bearing  obligations 
of  the  United  States,  except  in  cases  where  the  law  authorizing  the  issue 
of  any  such  obligation  has  expressly  provided  that  the  same  may  be  paid 
in  lawful  money  or  other  currency  than  gold  and  silver.  But  none  of  said 
interest-bearing  obligations  not  already  due  shall  be  redeemed  or  paid 
before  maturity,  unless  at  such  time  United  States  notes  shall  be  converti- 
ble into  coin  at  the  option  of  the  holder,  or  unless  at  such  time  bonds 
of  the  United  States  bearing  a  lower  rate  of  interest  than  the  bonds  to 
be  redeemed  can  be  sold  at  par  in  coin.  And  the  United  States  also 
solemnly  pledges  its  faith  to  make  provision  at  the  earliest  practicable 
period  for  the  redemption  of  the  United  States  notes  in  coin." 

This  law  may  be  called  the  great  legal  bulwark  of  the  public  credit 
fi-om  1869  to  1879.  Attempts  were  made  to  repeal  it,  but  in  vain.  It 
was  a  plain  declaration  that  the  obligations  of  the  government  were  to  be 


440       STRENGTHENING  THE  PUBLIC  CREDIT 

paid  in  coin ;  and  henceforth  there  could  be  op  question  that  the  nadon 
was  pledged  to  coin  payments.  Paper-money  men  denoimced  the  act 
and  its  authors  savagely ;  some  dedared  that,  if  carried  out,  it  would 
cost  the  country  a  thousand  million  dollars ;  it  was  said  to  be  a  gigantic 
swindle ;  but,  as  it  gave  a  new  point  of  departure  for  financial  operadons, 
as  well  as  legislation,  men  came  to  acquiesce  in  it  as  a  thing  accom- 
plished ;  and,  in  the  subsequent  financial  storms  that  swept  the  country^ 
thousands  of  men,  idio  had  been  in  doubt  whether  the  original  acts 
authorizing  the  bonds  and  greenbacks  required  coin  redemption,  an- 
chored securely  to  the  great  statute  ''  to  Strengthen  the  Public  Credit" 
BCr.  Garfield  supported  the  bill  in  these  remarics,  made  upon  the  motion 
to  adopt  a  report  of  the  conference  committee  to  which  it  had  been 
referred. 


MR.  SPEAKER.— I  favor  the  first  section  of  this  bill 
because  it  declares  plainly  what  the  law  is.  I  affinn 
again,  what  I  have  often  declared  in  this  hall,  that  the  law  does 
now  require  the  payment  of  these  bonds  in  gold.  I  hope  I 
may  without  impropriety  refer  to  the  fact  that  during  the  last 
session  I  proved  from  the  record  in  this  House,  and  in  the  pres- 
ence of  the  author  ^  of  the  law  by  which  these  bonds  were 
authorized,  that  five  distinct  times  in  his  speech,  which  imme- 
diately preceded  the  passage  of  the  law,  he  declared  the  five- 
twenty  bonds  were  payable,  principal  and  interest,  in  gold ;  and 
that  every  member  who  spoke  on  the  subject  took  the  same 
ground.  That  law  was  passed  with  that  declaration  uncontra- 
dicted, and  it  went  into  effect  stamped  with  that  declaration  by 
both  houses  of  Congress.  That  speech,  made  on  the  eve  of 
the  Presidential  campaign,  was  widely  circulated  throughout 
the  country  as  a  campaign  document,  and  those  who  held  the 
contrary  were  repeatedly  challenged  to  refute  its  statements. 
I  affirm  that  its  correctness  was  not  successfully  denied.  Not 
only  Congress  so  understands  and  declares,  but  every  Secre- 
tary of  the  Treasury  from  that  day  to  this  has  declared  that 
these  bonds  are  payable  in  gold.  The  authorized  agents  of  the 
government  sold  them,  and  the  people  bought  them,  with  this 
understanding. 

The  government  thus  bound  itself  by  every  obligation  of 
honor  and  good  faith;  and  it  was  not  until  one  year  after  the 
passage  of  the  law  that  any  man  in  Congress   raised  even  a 

*  Mr.  Stevens  of  Pennsylvania. 


STRENGTHENING   THE  PUBLIC  CREDIT      441 

doubt  on  the  subject.  The  doubts  since  raised  were  raised 
mainly  for  electioneering  purposes,  and  the  question  was  re- 
ferred to  the  people  for  arbitrament  at  the  late  Presidential 
election.  After  the  fullest  debate  ever  had  on  any  great  ques- 
tion of  national  politics  in  a  contest  in  which  the  two  parties 
squarely  and  fairly  joined  issue  on  this  very  point,  it  was  sol- 
emnly decided  by  the  great  majority  which  elected  General 
Grant  that  repudiators  should  be  repudiated,  and  that  the  faith 
of  the  nation  should  be  preserved  inviolate.  We  are  therefore 
bound  by  the  pledged  faith  of  the  nation,  by  the  spirit  and 
meaning  of  the  law,  and  finally  by  the  voice  of  the  people 
themselves,  to  resolve  all  doubts,  and  settle  the  credit  of  the 
United  States  by  this  explicit  declaration  of  the  national  will. 
The  action  of  the  House  on  this  bill  has  already  been  hailed 
throughout  the  world  as  the  dawn  of  better  days  for  the  finances 
of  the  nation,  and  every  market  has  shown  a  wonderful  im- 
provement of  our  credit.  We  could  this  day  refund  our  debt 
on  terms  more  advantageous  to  the  government  by  $  1 20,ooo,ocX) 
than  we  could  have  done  the  day  before  the  passage  of  this 
bill  by  the  House.  Make  it  a  law,  and  a  still  greater  improve- 
ment will  result. 

I  can  in  no  way  better  indicate  my  views  of  the  propriety  of 
passing  the  second  section  of  this  bill,  than  by  reminding  the 
House  that  I  introduced  this  proposition  in  a  separate  bill  on 
the  loth  of  February,  1868,  and  its  passage  has  been  more  gen- 
erally demanded  by  the  people  and  press  of  the  country  than 
any  other  financial  measure  before  Congress.  The  principle 
involved  in  this  section  is  simply  this:  to  make  it  possible  for 
gold  to  come  into  this  country  and  to  remain  here.  Gold  and 
silver  are  lawful  money  of  the  United  States;  and  yet  the 
opponents  of  this  section  would  have  us  make  it  unlawful  for 
a  citizen  to  enforce  contracts  made  hereafter,  which  shall  call 
for  the  payment  of  gold.  The  very  statement  of  this  doctrine 
ought  to  be  its  sufficient  refutation.  But  the  minds  of  gentle- 
men are  vexed  with  the  fear  that  this  section  will  be  an  engine 
of  oppression  in  the  hands  of  creditors.  If  any  new  safeguards 
can  be  devised  that  are  not  already  in  this  section,  I  know  not 
what  they  are.  Whenever  this  law  is  carried  out  in  its  letter 
and  spirit,  no  injustice  can  possibly  result.  The  whole  power 
of  the  law  is  in  the  hands  of  the  creditor,  and  he  alone  is  sup- 
posed to  be  in  danger  of  suffering  wrong. 


442       STRENGTHENING   THE  PUBLIC  CREDIT. 

In  the  moment  that  remains  to  me,  I  can  do  no  more  than  to 
indicate  the  grounds  on  which  the  justice  of  this  measure  rests. 
It  is  a  great  and  important  step  toward  specie  payments,  because 
it  removes  the  unwise  and  oppressive  decree  which  almost  ex- 
patriates American  gold  and  silver.  It  will  not  only  allow  our 
own  coin  to  stay  at  home,  but  it  will  permit  foreign  coin  to  flow 
hither  from  Europe.  More  than  $70,000,000  of  our  gold  is 
going  abroad  every  year  in  excess  of  what  comes  to  us,  and  at 
the  same  time  in  eight  kingdoms  of  Europe  there  is  nearly 
$500,000,000  of  idle  gold  ready  to  be  invested  at  less  than  three 
per  cent  interest.  In  the  Bank  of  England  and  the  Bank  of 
France  there  has  been  for  more  than  a  year  an  average  of  more 
than  $300,000,000  of  bullion,  and  most  of  that  time  the  bank 
rate  of  interest  has  been  less  than  two  per  cent.  Who  can 
doubt  that  much  of  this  gold  will  find  its  way  here,  if  it  can  be 
invested  without  committing  the  fortunes  of  its  owners  to  the 
uncertain  chances  of  inconvertible  paper  money? 

But  the  passage  of  this  bill  will  enable  citizens  to  transact 
their  business  on  a  iixed  and  certain  basis.  It  will  give  stability 
and  confidence  to  trade,  and  pave  the  way  for  specie  payments. 
The  Supreme  Court  hd^  in  fact  decided  that  this  is  now  the  law; 
but  let  us  put  it  on  the  statute-book  as  a  notice  to  the  people, 
and  to  prevent  unnecessary  litigation. 


THE    NINTH    CENSUS. 

REMARKS    MADE   IN   THE   HOUSE  OF  REPRESENTATIVES, 

April  6,  1869. 


The  first  six  censuses  of  the  United  States  were  taken  under  special 
laws,  enacted  on  the  eve  of  each  recurring  decennial  enumeration.  May 
23,  1850,  thb  President  approved  "  An  Act  providing  for  the  taking  of 
the  Seventh  and  subsequent  Censuses  of  the  United  States,  and  to  fix  the 
Number  of  the  Members  of  the  House  of  Representatives,  and  provide 
for  their  future  Apportionment  among  the  several  States."  Under  this 
law  the  censuses  of  1850  and  i860  were  taken.  Mr.  Garfield's  study  of 
statistics  led  him  to  the  investigation  of  the  census  and  of  censuses, 
which  revealed  to  him  the  many  and  great  defects  of  the  law  of  1850. 
So,  January  20,  1869,  he  offered  in  the  House  of  Representatives  this 
resolution  :  "  Ecsolvedy  That  a  select  committee  of  seven  be  appointed  to 
inquire  and  report  to  the  House  what  legislation  is  necessary  to  provide 
for  taking  the  Ninth  Census,  as  provided  by  the  Constitution ;  and  that 
said  committee  have  leave  to  report  at  any  time,  by  bill  or  otherwise." 
The  resolution  was  adopted,  and  Mr.  Garfield  was  made  chairman  of  the 
special  committee.  The  subject  was  not  reached  that  session,  and  the 
committee  ceased  to  exist  with  the  House  that  created  it  At  the  first 
session  of  the  Forty-first  Congress  a  special  committee  of  nine  was  cre- 
ated upon  the  same  subject.  Political  and  personal  reasons  led  the 
Speaker  to  place  Mr.  Garfield  second  upon  this  committee,  but  with  the 
understanding  that  he  would  be  the  real  chairman.  March  24,  1 869,  he 
reported  a  bill  for  taking  the  ninth  and  subsequent  censuses,  which  the 
House  first  amended,  and  then  passed.  In  the  Senate  no  action  was  had. 
As  Mr.  Garfield  passed  over  part  of  the  ground  much  more  thoroughly 
in  his  speech  of  December  16,  1869,  some  of  his  remarks  upon  this  bill 
are  here  omitted. 


MR.   SPEAKER,  —  I  am  quite  sure  that  I  cannot  overrate 
the  importance  of  any  bill  which  this  House  may  pass, 
to  provide  for  taking  the  next  census,  nor  can  I  hope,  in  the 


444  THE  NINTH  CENSUS. 

thirty  minutes  granted  me,  to  discuss  it  worthily.  I  can  do  no 
more  than  indicate  some  of  the  leading  points  connected  with 
the  work,  and  touch  upon  the  principles  on  which  it  rests.  But 
for  the  pressure  of  business  which  now  crowds  the  closing  days 
of  the  session,  I  should  insist  on  a  full  discussion  of  the  whole 
subject,  but  I  yield  to  necessity,  and  ask  the  House  not  to  judge 
the  measure  by  my  support  of  it 

It  is  a  noteworthy  fact,  that  the  Constitution  of  the  United 
States  is  the  only  one  among  modern  constitutions  that  pro- 
vides for  the  taking  of  a  census  of  the  population  at  regular 
intervals.  Other  nations  have  established  methods  of  taking 
statistical  account  of  their  people,  but  in  ours  alone,  I  believe, 
is  a  census  made  the  very  basis  of  the  government  itself.  The 
fact  is  also  significant  as  indicating  the  tendency  of  modem 
civilization  to  find  the  basis  and  source  of  power  in  the  people, 
rather  than  in  dynasties  or  in  any  special  theories  of  govern- 
ment. It  is  a  declaration  that  the  population  of  the  country  are 
the  great  source  of  wealth,  as  well  as  of  power.  Our  wealth  is 
found  not  so  much  in  the  veins  of  rich  minerals  that  fill  the 
earth  as  in  the  purple  veins  of  our  free  citizens.  Placing  this 
high  value  on  human  nature,  our  fathers  wisely  required  that 
once  in  ten  years  we  should  make  out  anew  the  muster-roll, 
and  ascertain  the  condition  and  strength  of  the  great  army  of 
civilization  which  then  started  on  its  grand  march  across  the 
centuries. 

This  age  is  pre-eminently  distinguished  by  the  fact  that  it 
recognizes  more  fully  than  any  other  the  reign  of  law;  that 
not  physical  nature  alone,  but  man  and  great  communities  of 
men,  are  modified  and  controlled  by  laws  which  arc  as  old  as 
creation.  It  is  a  part  of  that  great  reform  which  Bacon 
applied  to  science,  and  which  modern  nations  are  applying  to 
politics.  Before  Bacon's  time,  if  a  man  desired  to  write  about 
the  solar  system,  he  sat  down  in  his  closet  and  evolved  from 
his  own  mind  his  theory  of  the  universe ;  he  framed  a  plan  of 
nature,  and  then  tried  to  bend  the  facts  to  suit  his  theor}'^ :  but 
the  new  system  of  philosophy  changed  all  this.  It  taught  the 
man  of  science  that  he  must  become  like  a  little  child,  sit  at  the 
feet  of  Nature  and  learn  of  her;  and  that  only  by  a  patient  and 
humble  study  of  facts  and  phenomena  could  he  discover  the 
laws  by  which  the  universe  is  governed.  In  such  studies  man 
must  be  a  discoverer,  not  an  inventor.     By  slow  degrees  have 


THE  NINTH  CENSUS.  445 

mankind  come  to  know  that  law  pervades  the  universe  of  mind 
as  well  as  of  matter;  and  latest  of  all  have  they  come  to  the 
knowledge  that  men  and  nations  must  be  studied,  and  that  the 
social  and  political  forces  of  a  nation  must  be  examined  with 
the  same  care  that  the  man  of  science  studies  nature,  before  we 
can  frame  wise  and  salutary  laws  for  the  government  of  its 
people.  All  attempts  of  philosophers  to  form  ideal  theories  of 
government  have  been  utter  failures.  Neither  Plato's  Republic, 
More's  Utopia,  nor  John  Locke's  **  Fundamental  Constitutions 
for  the  Government  of  Carolinas,"  would  ever  have  been  tolerated 
a  day  in  any  nation  of  the  earth.  These  writers  were  building 
kingdoms  in  the  realms  of  imagination,  not  on  the  earth. 

The  spirit  of  our  times  is  far  different.  When  we  propose 
to  legislate  for  great  masses  of  people,  we  must  first  study  the 
great  facts  relating  to  the  people,  —  their  number,  strength, 
length  of  life,  intelligence,  morality,  occupations,  industry,  and 
wealth ;  for  out  of  these  spring  the  glory  or  the  shame,  the 
prosperity  or  the  ruin,  of  a  nation.  We  must  gather,  record, 
and  consider  these  great  facts,  and  make  them  the  basis  of  our 
legislation.  Men  of  ancient  times  resembled  rather  the  Ger- 
man philosopher  of  whom  it  is  said  that,  if  he  was  called  upon 
to  describe  a  camel,  he  could  evoke  a  description  of  that  ani- 
mal from  his  consciousness.  The  modern  method  would  be 
to  photograph  the  camel  or  dissect  him,  and  learn  from  actual 
observation  rather  than  from  the  suggestion  of  the  inner  con- 
sciousness. I  believe  the  time  is  coming,  and  indeed  is  almost 
here,  when  the  man  who  comes  into  this  hall  as  a  legislator  for 
the  people  must  come,  not  merely  with  theories,  but  furnished 
with  material  facts,  which  exhibit  the  condition,  wants,  wealth, 
industry,  and  tendencies  of  the  people  for  whom  he  proposes 
to  legislate,  or  he  will  be  powerless  to  serve  their  higher 
wants.  The  black-letter  learning  of  the  law  will  not  suffice. 
He  must  study  the  laws  which  the  Creator  has  written  in  the 
hearts  of  men,  and  in  the  continents  which  they  inhabit,  if  he 
would  know  how  to  legislate  for  a  great  nation. 

This  is  the  age  of  statistics,  Mr.  Speaker.  The  word  "  statis- 
tics" itself  did  not  exist  until  1749,  whence  we  date  the  begin- 
ning of  the  new  science  on  which  modern  legislation  must  be 
based  in  order  to  be  permanent.  The  treatise  of  Achenwall,  the 
German  professor  who  originated  the  word,  laid  the  foundations 
of  many  of  the  greatest  reforms  in  modern  legislation.     Statis- 


44*5  THE  NINTH  CENSUS. 

tics  are  state  facts,  —  facts  for  the  consideration  of  statesmen, 
such  as  they  may  not  neglect  with  safety.  It  has  been  truly 
said  that  "  statistics  are  history  in  repose ;  history  is  statistics  in 
motion."  If  we  neglect  the  one,  we  shall  deserve  to  be  neglected 
by  the  other.  The  legislator  without  statistics  is  like  the  mari- 
ner at  sea  without  a  compass.  Nothing  can  safely  be  commit- 
ted to  his  guidance. 

A  question  of  fearful  importance  to  the  well-being  of  the  re- 
public has  agitated  this  House  for  many  weeks.  It  is  this: 
"Are  our  rich  men  growing  richer,  and  our  poor  men  growing 
poorer?"  And  how  can  this  most  vital  question  be  settled  ex- 
cept by  the  most  careful  and  honest  examination  of  the  facts? 
Who  can  doubt  that  the  next  census  will  reveal  to  us  more  im- 
portant truths  concerning  the  condition  of  our  people  than  any 
census  ever  taken  by  any  nation?  By  what  standard  could  we 
measure  the  value  of  a  complete,  perfect  record  of  the  condition 
of  the  people  of  this  country,  —  such  a  record  as  should  exhibit 
their  burdens  and  their  strength?  Who  doubts  that  it  would  be  a 
document  of  inestimable  value  to  the  legislator  and  to  the  nation  ? 
How  to  achieve  it.  how  to  accomplish  it,  is  the  L^reat  question. 

We  are  near  the  end  of  a  decade  which  has  been  full  of  earth- 
quakes, and  amid  the  tumult  we  do  not  yet  comprehend  the  stu- 
pendous changes  through  which  we  have  passed,  nor  can  we 
until  the  whole  field  is  resurveyed.  If  a  thousand  volcanoes 
should  burst  beneath  the  ocean,  the  mariner  would  need  new 
charts  before  he  could  safely  sail  the  seas  again.  We  are  soon 
to  set  out  on  our  next  decade  with  a  thousand  new  elements 
thrown  in  upon  us  by  the  war.  The  way  is  trackless ;  who 
shall  pilot  us?  The  war  repealed  a  part  of  our  venerable 
census  law,  the  schedule  that  was  devoted  to  slaves.  Thank 
God !  it  is  useless  now.  Old  things  have  passed  away,  and  a 
multitude  of  new  things  are  here  to  be  recorded;  not  only  are 
the  things  to  be  taken  new,  but  the  manner  of  taking  them  re- 
quires a  thorough  remodelling  at  our  hands.  If  this  Congress 
does  not  worthily  meet  the  demands  of  this  great  occasion,  every 
member  must  bear  his  share  of  the  odium  that  justly  attaches  to 
men  who  fail  to  discharge  duties  of  momentous  importance, 
which,  once  neglected,  can  never  be  performed. 

As  the  previous  law  had  in  it  a  provision  in  relation  to  the 
basis  of  representation,  we  have  also  treated  that  subject  in  this 


THE  NINTH  CENSUS.  447 

bill ;  and  for  the  information  of  the  House  I  will  state  the  history 
of  our  legislation  on  this  subject  hitherto. 

Before  the  first  census  was  taken,  there  were  sixty-five  mem- 
bers of  the  House  of  Representatives.  Under  the  first  two 
censuses,  from  1793  to  181 3,  the  basis  of  representation  was  a 
population  of  33,000  to  a  representative.  There  were,  during 
the  first  decade,  105  members  of  the  House;  during  the  second, 
141.  From  18 1 3  to  1823,  the  basis  of  representation  was  35,000, 
and  there  were  181  members.  From  1823  to  1833,  the  basis 
was  40,000,  and  the  number  of  members  212.  From  1833  to 
1843  the  basis  was  47,700,  and  the  number  of  members  240. 
From  1843  to  1853,  the  ratio  was  70,680,  and  the  number  of 
members  223.  From  1853  to  1863,  the  basis  was  93,500,  and 
the  number  of  members  234.  In  1863  the  basis  of  representa- 
tion was  127,941,  and  the  number  of  members  241.^ 

Up  to  1850,  it  will  be  noticed  that  the  House  of  Representa- 
tives grew,  not  so  fast  as  population,  but  nevertheless  in  a  ratio 
which  corresponded  in  some  degree  to  the  increase  of  popula- 
tion. The  law  of  1850  made  the  House  of  Representatives 
stationary  in  numbers,  and  the  basis  of  representation  for  a 
member  has  increased  each  decade.  Now,  according  to  the 
best  estimate  we  have  seen,  the  next  decade  will  give  us  a  pop- 
ulation of  nearly  185,000  for  each  Representative.  This  ratio 
will  cut  off  about  seven  Representatives  from  New  England, 
several  from  the  Middle  States,  and  transfer  the  representative 
centre  of  population  farther  west.  The  committee  believe,  on 
two  or  three  grounds  which  I  will  state  in  a  few  words,  that  we 
ought  to  change  the  present  basis,  and  instead  of  providing  that 
the  House  of  Representatives  shall  consist  of  a  fixed  number  of 
Representatives,  allow  it  to  share  to  some  extent  the  growth  of 
the  country.  If  it  docs  not,  every  decade  will  disturb  still  more 
the  old  balance  of  representative  power.  Since  1863,  127,941 
Americans  have  had  no  more  representative  power  than  33,000 
had  sixty  years  ago,  nor  even  so  much,  for  then  33,000  elected 
one  out  of  181  Representatives;  now,  170,000  elect  but  one  out 
of  233. 

Now,  the  committee  believe  that  185,000  people  is  too  much 
for  any  one  man  to  represent  well.  The  duties  thrown  upon 
members  of  Congress  as  the  result  of  our  late  war  have  made 

^  The  law  of  1850  fixed  the  number  at  233.     Eight  additional  members  were, 
in  1863,  apportioned  to  as  many  States  by  a  special  act. 


448  THE  NINTH  CENSUS. 

an  immense  increase  in  the  amount  of  business.  The  personal 
relations  in  which  a  member  of  Congress  is  brought  to  his  con- 
stituents, with  the  increasing  business  of  the  nation,  will  render 
it  erelong  impossible,  if  it  be  not  so  already,  for  any  one  man 
to  perform  well  and  faithfully  all  the  duties  of  his  station. 

If  the  present  system  continues,  and  our  districts  are  to  in- 
crease in  the  future  in  the  same  ratio  as  in  the  past,  it  will 
become  more  and  more  difficult,  and  will  at  length  become  in 
many  cases  impossible,  for  any  one  man  to  truly  represent  his 
district.  How  many  large  districts  are  there  now,  one  end  of 
which  is  agricultural,  and  perhaps  in  favor  of  free  trade,  while 
the  other  end  is  engaged  in  manufactures,  and  perhaps  is  in 
favor  of  a  high  protective  tariff!  No  man  can  fairly  represent 
a  district  so  extended  that  it  embraces  such  diverse  opinions 
and  interests. 

Again,  it  was  the  purpose  of  our  fathers  in  framing  the  Con- 
stitution that  this  House  should  be  the  large,  if  not  the  popular 
body  of  Congress,  as  compared  with  the  Senate.  Now,  for 
twenty  years  the  House  of  Representatives  has  had  no  growth. 
During  the  same  period,  the  Senate  has  been  growing  at  the 
rate  of  two  Senators  for  each  new  State  admitted  into  the 
Union,  and  the  growth  of  that  body  in  twenty  years  has  been 
nearly  twenty  per  cent.  Let  this  state  of  things  continue,  and 
ultimately  the  Senate  will  become  the  large  body  and  the 
House  of  Representatives  the  small  one:  The  committee,  there- 
fore, believe  it  is  wiser  to  fix  some  representative  basis,  and 
they  propose  to  fix  it  at  150,000.  According  to  the  best  esti- 
mates we  can  get,  this  will  give  for  the  next  decade  a  House  of 
Representatives  of  about  270  members,  an  increase  of  2^  over 
the  number  provided  for  by  the  present  law;  and  it  will  prob- 
ably not  decrease  the  present  number  of  Representatives  from 
any  State,  though  it  will  of  course  very  considerably  increase 
the  number  in  some  of  the  States.^ 

This  whole  matter  of  representation,  however,  if  the  House 
do  not  think  it  ought  to  be  considered  here,  can  be  dropped 
out  of  this  bill,  and  left  to  be  considered  after  we  get  the  pre- 
liminary census  report.  We  have  thought  it  advisable,  how- 
ever, to  put  it  in  here,  because  once  in  the  history  of  the 
government  there  was  a  long  and  acrimonious  struggle  over 
the  question  of  a  representative  ratio,  growing  out  of  the  fact 

1  The  law  of  1873  ro^de  the  ratio  130,533,  the  number  of  Representatives  292. 


THE  NINTH  CENSUS.  449 

that  Congress  had  the  figures  before  them,  and  each  member 
knew  how  many  members  his  State  would  get  from  any  ratio 
that  might  be  adopted.  We  can  fix  that  matter  now,  before  we 
know  what  the  figures  will  be,  letting  it  hit  where  it  may,  better 
than  we  can  when  the  result  is  known,  and  individual  and  State 
interests  are  involved 


VOL.  I.  29 


THE    NINTH    CENSUS. 

SPEECH  DELIVERED  IN  THE   HOUSE  OF  REPRESENTATIVES, 

December  16,  1869. 


The  bill  that  passed  the  House  of  Representatives,  April  6,  1869,  had 
it  become  a  law,  would  have  been  but  a  tentative  measure.  As  amended, 
the  bill  provided  for  a  Census  Bureau  with  a  Superintendent  at  its  head ; 
also  for  a  joint  committee  of  the  two  houses,  composed  of  the  House 
committee  already  appointed  and  such  committee  as  the  Senate  might 
add  thereto,  which  committee  was  to  investigate  the  whole  subject  in 
the  recess  of  Congress,  and  to  report  by  bill  at  the  next  session.  The 
House  bill  having  failed  in  the  Senate,  the  House  adopted  this  resolu- 
tion :  "  Resolvedy  that  the  Committee  on  the  Ninth  Census  shall  have 
power  to  send  for  persons  and  papers  and  to  examine  witnesses,  in  order 
to  ascertain  the  best  method  of  taking  the  said  Ninth  Census,  and  for 
obtaining  such  other  information  concerning  the  population,  industry-^, 
property,  and  resources  of  the  country  as  they  may  think  proper,  for 
the  purpose  of  rendering  the  census  and  statistics  to  be  obtained  forth- 
with correct  and  valuable.  And  said  committee  are  hereby  authorized 
to  act  during  the  recess  of  Congress  through  sub-committees,  and  shall 
report  at  the  next  session  of  Congress  a  bill  for  the  taking  of  the  census, 
with  such  schedules,  forms,  and  directions  as  they  may  think  best ;  and 
the  Congressional  Printer  is  hereby  authorized  to  print  such  portions  of 
the  evidence  and  such  documents  as  said  committee  may  require  during 
the  recess,  in  order  that  their  report  may  be  made  in  print  at  the  com- 
mencement of  the  next  session  of  Congress.'* 

In  the  recess  a  sub-committee,  with  Mr.  Garfield  at  its  head,  thor- 
oughly investigated  the  whole  subject,  and  the  first  day  of  the  next  ses- 
sion a  bill  was  reported  "  for  taking  the  Ninth  Census  of  the  United 
States,  to  ^yi  the  number  of  the  members  of  the  House  of  Representa- 
tives, and  to  provide  for  their  future  apportionment  among  the  several 
States."  After  lengthy  and  thorough  discussion,  the  House,  having  first 
struck  out  those  parts  relating  to  the  number  of  Representatives  and 
their  apportionment  among  the  States,   as  well  as  made  some  minor 


THE  NINTH  CENSUS,  451 

changes,  passed  the  bill,  December  1 6.  The  title,  amended  to  suit  the 
changes  made  in  the  bill,  was,  "  A  Bill  to  provide  for  taking  the  Ninth 
Census  of  the  United  States."  The  following  is  the  speech  with  which 
Mr.  Garfield  closed  the  debate  in  the  House.  The  Senate  tabled  the 
bill  after  a  spirited  debate. 

Although  defeated  in  1870,  Mr.  Garfield's  attempt  to  secure  an  im- 
proved census  law  was  exceedingly  fruitful  in  results  that  may  be  here 
mentioned. 

P'irst,  it  secured  some  immediate  modifications  of  the  law  of  1850,  the 
effect  of  which  was  to  make  the  census  of  1870  more  valuable  than  it 
would  otherwise  have  been. 

Second,  it  called  out  a  large  amount  of  census  literature.  The  docu- 
ments published  under  the  direction  of  the  Census  Committee  were  as 
follows:  "Ninth  Census  of  the  United  States,"  48  pages,  consisting  of 
letters  addressed  to  the  committee  by  various  authorities  and  experts ; 
"  Constitutional  Provisions  of  States  with  Reference  to  a  Census  as  the 
Basis  of  Representation  in  their  Legislatures,"  9  pages ;  "  Provisions  of  the 
National  and  State  Constitutions  and  Laws  relating  to  the  Right  of  Suf- 
fice," 36  pages ;  and  the  "  Report  of  the  Census  Committee,"  submitted 
January  18,  1870,  120  pages.  This  report  was  prepared  under  the  imme- 
mediate  direction  of  Mr.  Garfield,  and  much  of  it  was  fi'om  his  own  hand. 
To  some  extent  it  includes  the  ground  covered  by  the  former  documents. 
All  in  all,  this  report  is  to-day  the  best  census  manual  that  has  yet  appeared. 
What  is  more,  out  of  those  studies  grew  the  article  entitled  "  Census,"  in 
♦  Johnson's  Cyclopaedia.  Touching  this  report  and  article,  Mr.  S.  S.  Cox 
said,  in  the  House  of  Representatives,  February  18, 1879  :  "  The  exhaust- 
ive Report  No.  3,  Forty-first  Congress,  made  by  the  gentleman  firom 
Ohio,  on  the  i8th  of  January,  1870,  makes  it  unnecessary  for  me  to  col- 
late the  history  connected  with  statistical  observation.  Even  if  that  report 
were  not  in  existence,  the  comprehensive  article  in  Johnson's  Encyclopae- 
dia, by  the  same  distinguished  gentieman,  would  furnish  all  the  informa- 
tion necessary  to  understand  the  history  of  the  census,  fi-om  the  beginning 
of  civilization  down  to  and  including  our  own  country." 

Third,  that  attempt  led  to  the  law  under  which  the  census  of  1880 
was  taken.  This  excellent  law  was  little  more  than  a  transcript  of  Mr. 
Garfield's  bill  of  ten  years  before.  Mr.  Cox,  who  had  the  management 
of  the  bill  of  1880  in  the  House,  speaking  of  the  law  of  1850,  said: 
"  Indeed,  it  was  confessed  by  those  who  prepared  that  bill,  that  it  was 
but  a  trial.  Its  framers  hoped  for  larger  and  more  liberal  legislation  in 
future.  In  so  far  as  this  House  is  concerned,  they  gave  that  legislation 
in  1870,  and  the  Senate  last  week  has  shown  its  disposition  to  substitute 
another  law,  not  unlike  ours,  for  that  of  1850." 

Mr.  Garfield's  minor  speeches  and  incidental  remarks  on  the  bills  of 
1870  and  of  1880  will  be  found  full  of  valuable  information  and  useful 


452  THE  NINTH  CENSUS. 

thought  The  pamphlet  entitled,  "  The  American  Census,  a  Paper  read 
before  the  American  Social  Science  Association,  at  New  York,  October 
27,  1869,  by  James  A.  Garfield,"  is  substantially  the  same  as  the  follow- 
ing speech.    Here  are  the  ''  materials  "  referred  to  below. 


"Statistics  are  History  in  rqx>8e;  History  is  Statistics  in  motion." — Schlossbr. 

MR.  SPEAKER,  —  The  protracted  and  patient  attention 
which  the  House  has  given  to  this  bill  during  the  last 
seven  days  is  the  best  evidence  that  could  be  offered  of  the 
deep  interest  felt  in  the  subject;  and  the  fact  that  no  leading 
feature  of  the  bill  as  introduced  by  the  committee  has  been 
changed  by  the  House  is  a  strong  assurance  that  the  House 
approves  of  the  work  of  the  committee.  I  now  beg  leave  to 
present  a  brief  review  of  the  bill  in  its  present  shape,  as  com- 
pared with  the  old  law,  and  will  also  venture  to  ask  the  indul- 
gence of  the  House  in  the  presentation  of  some  general  consid- 
erations on  the  subject  of  the  census  as  a  leading  instrument  of 
modem  civilization.  In  doing  so  I  shall  take  the  liberty  of  using 
some  materials  which  I  have  used  elsewhere,  in  discussing  the 
general  subject. 

The  modern  census  is  so  closely  related  to  the  science  of  sta- 
tistics, that  no  general  discussion  of  it  is  possible  without  con- 
sidering the  principles  on  which  statistical  science  rests,  and 
the  objects  which  it  proposes  to  reach.  The  science  of  statis- 
tics is  of  recent  date,  and,  like  many  of  its  sister  sciences,  owes 
its  origin  to  the  best  and  freest  impulses  of  modern  civilization. 
The  enumerations  of  inhabitants  and  the  appraisements  of  prop- 
erty made  by  some  of  the  nations  of  antiquity  were  practical 
means  employed  sometimes  to  distribute  political  power,  but 
more  frequently  to  adjust  the  burdens  of  war;  but  no  attempt 
was  made  among  them  to  classify  the  facts  obtained,  so  as  to 
make  them  the  basis  of  scientific  induction.  The  thought  of 
studying  these  facts  to  ascertain  the  wants  of  society  had  not 
then  dawned  on  the  human  mind,  and  of  course  there  was  not  a 
science  of  statistics  in  the  modern  sense. 

It  is  never  easy  to  fix  the  precise  date  of  the  birth  of  any 
science,  but  we  may  safely  say  that  statistics  did  not  enter  upon 
its  scientific  phase  before  1749,  when  it  received  from  Professor 
Achenwall,  of  Gottingen,  not  only  its  name,  but  the  first  com- 


THE  NINTH  CENSUS,  453 

prehensive  statement  of  its  principles.  Without  pausing  to 
trace  the  stages  of  its  growth,  some  of  the  results  of  the  culti- 
vation of  statistics  in  the  spirit  and  methods  of  science  may 
be  stated  as  germane  to  this  discussion. 

I.  It  has  developed  the  truth  that  society  is  an  organism, 
whose  elements  and  forces  conform  to  laws  as  constant  and 
pervasive  as  those  which  govern  the  material  universe;  and 
that  the  study  of  these  laws  will  enable  man  to  ameliorate  his 
condition,  to  emancipate  himself  from  the  cruel  dominion  of 
superstition,  and  from  countless  evils  which  were  once  thought 
beyond  his  control,  and  will  make  him  the  master,  rather  than 
the  slave,  of  nature. 

Mankind  have  been  slow  to  believe  that  order  reigns  in  the 
universe,  —  that  the  world  is  a  cosmos,  and  not  a  chaos.  The 
assertion  of  the  reign  of  law  has  been  stubbornly  resisted  at 
every  step.  The  divinities  of  heathen  superstition  still  linger, 
in  one  form  or  another,  in  the  faith  of  the  ignorant ;  and  even 
many  intelligent  men  shrink  from  the  contemplation  of  one 
Supreme  Will  acting  regularly,  not  fortuitously,  through  laws 
beautiful  and  simple,  rather  than  through  a  fitful  and  capricious 
Providence.  Lecky  tells  us  *  that,  in  the  early  ages,  it  was  be- 
lieved that  the  motion  of  the  heavenly  bodies,  as  well  as  atmos- 
pheric changes,  were  effected  by  angels.  In  the  Talmud  a  special 
angel  was  assigned  to  every  star  and  every  element,  and  similar 
notions  were  general  throughout  the  Middle  Ages.  The  scientific 
spirit  has  cast  out  the  demons,  and  presented  us  with  Nature, 
clothed  and  in  her  right  mind,  and  living  under  the  reign  of  law. 
It  has  given  us  for  the  sorceries  of  the  alchemist  the  beautiful 
laws  of  chemistry ;  for  the  dreams  of  the  astrologer,  the  sub- 
lime truths  of  astronomy ;  for  the  wild  visions  of  cosmogony, 
the  monumental  records  of  geology;  for  the  anarchy  of  dia- 
bolism, the  laws  of  God. 

But  more  stubborn  still  has  been  the  resistance  to  every  at- 
tempt to  assert  the  reign  of  law  in  the  realm  of  society.  In 
that  struggle  statistics  has  been  the  handmaid  of  science,  and 
has  poured  a  flood  of  light  upon  the  dark  questions  of  famine 
and  pestilence,  ignorance  and  crime,  disease  and  death.  We 
no  longer  hope  to  predict  the  career  and  destiny  of  a  human 
being  by  studying  the  conjunction  of  planets  at  the  time  of  his 
birth.     We  study  rather  the  laws  of  life  within  him,  and  the  ele- 

^  Rationalism  in  Europe,  Vol.  I.  p.  289  (New  York,  D.  Appleton  &  Co.,  1866). 


4S4  '^H^  NINTH  CENSUS. 

ments  and  forces  of  nature  and  society  around  him.  We  no 
longer  attribute  the  untimely  death  of  infants  to  the  sin  of 
Adam,  but  to  bad  nursing  and  ignorance.  We  are  beginning 
to  acknowledge  that 

**  The  fault,  dear  Brutus,  is  not  in  our  stars, 
But  in  ourselves,  that  we  are  underlings." 

Men  are  only  beginning  to  recognize  these  truths.  In  1853 
the  Presbytery  of  Edinburgh  petitioned  the  British  ministry  to 
appoint  a  day  of  national  fasting  and  prayer,  in  order  to  stay 
the  ravages  of  cholera  in  Scotland.  Lord  Palmerston,  the  Home 
Secretary,  replied  in  a  letter  which,  a  century  before,  no  British 
statesman  would  have  dared  to  write.  He  told  the  clergy  of 
Scotland,  that,  the  plague  being  already  upon  them,  activity 
was  preferable  to  humiliation;  that  the  causes  of  disease 
should  be  removed  by  improving  the  abodes  of  the  poor, 
and  cleansing  them  "  from  those  causes  and  sources  of  conta- 
gion which,  if  allowed  to  remain,  will  infallibly  breed  pestilence 
and  be  fruitful  in  death,  in  spite  of  all  the  prayers  and  fastings 
of  a  united  but  inactive  nation."  Henry  Thomas  Buckle  ex- 
pressed the  belief  that  this  letter  would  be  quoted  in  future 
ages  as  a  striking  illustration  of  the  progress  of  enlightened 
public  opinion.^  But  that  further  progress  is  possible  is  seen 
in  the  fact  that,  within  the  last  three  years,  an  English  Bishop 
has  attributed  the  rinderpest  to  the  Oxford  Essays  and  the 
writings  of  Colcnso.  In  these  remarks,  I  disclaim  any  reference 
to  the  dominion  of  the  Creator  over  his  spiritual  universe,  and 
the  high  and  sacred  duty  of  all  his  intelligent  creatures  to  rever- 
ence and  worship  him.  I  speak  solely  of  those  laws  that  relate 
to  the  physical,  intellectual,  and  social  life  of  man. 

2.  The  developments  of  statistics  are  causing  history  to  be 
rewritten.  Till  recently,  the  historian  studied  nations  in  the 
aggregate,  and  gave  us  only  the  story  of  princes,  dynasties, 
sieges,  and  battles.  Of  the  people  themselves  —  the  great  so- 
cial body,  with  life,  growth,  forces,  elements,  and  laws  of  its 
own  —  he  told  us  nothing.  Now,  statistical  inquiry  leads  him 
into  the  hovels,  homes,  workshops,  mines,  fields,  prisons,  hos- 
pitals, and  all  other  places  where  human  nature  displays  its 
weakness  and  its  strength.  In  these  explorations  he  discovers 
the  seeds  of  national  growth  and  decay,  and  thus  becomes  the 

*  See  History  of  Civilization  in  England,  Vol.  II.  pp.  465-467  (New  York,  D. 
Appleton  &  Co.,  1867). 


THE  NINTH  CENSUS.  455 

prophet  of  his  generation.  Without  the  aid  of  statistics,  that 
most  masterly  chapter  of  human  history  —  the  third  of  Macau- 
lay's  History  of  England  —  could  never  have  been  written. 

3.  Statistical  science  is  indispensable  to  modern  statesman- 
ship. In  legislation  as  in  physical  science,  it  is  beginning  to  be 
understood  that  we  can  control  terrestrial  forces  only  by  obey- 
ing their  laws.  The  legislator  must  formulate  in  his  statutes 
not  only  the  national  will,  but  also  the  great  laws  of  social  life 
revealed  by  statistics.  He  must  study  society  rather  than  black- 
letter  learning.  He  must  learn  the  truth,  "  that  society  usually 
prepares  the  crime,  and  the  criminal  is  only  the  instrument  that 
completes  it " ;  that  statesmanship  consists  rather  in  removing 
causes  than  in  punishing  or  evading  results.  Light  itself  is  a 
great  corrective.  A  thousand  wrongs  and  abuses  that  grow  in 
the  darkness  disappear  like  owls  and  bats  before  the  light  of 
day.  For  example,  who  can  doubt  that  before  many  months 
the  press  of  this  country  will  burn  down  the  whipping-posts  of 
Delaware  as  effectually  as  the  mirrors  of  Archimedes  burned 
the  Roman  ships  in  the  harbor  of  Syracuse? 

I  know  of  no  writer  who  has  exhibited  the  importance  to 
statesmanship  of  this  science  so  fully  and  so  ably  as  Sir  George 
Cornewall  Lewis  in  his  treatise  "  On  the  Methods  of  Observation 
and  Reasoning  in  Politics."  After  showing  that  politics  is  now 
taking  its  place  among  the  sciences,  and,  as  a  science,  rests  its 
superstructure  on  observed  and  classified  facts,  he  says  of  the 
registration  of  political  facts,  which  consists  of  history  and  statis- 
tics, that  it  may  be  considered  as  the  entrance  and  propylaea  to 
politics.  It  furnishes  the  materials  upon  which  the  artificer 
operates,  which  he  hews  into  shape  and  builds  up  into  a  sym- 
metrical structure.  In  a  subsequent  chapter  he  states  the  im- 
portance of  statistics  to  the  practical  statesman  in  this  strong 
and  lucid  language :  "  He  can  hardly  take  a  single  safe  step 
without  consulting  them.  Whether  he  be  framing  a  plan  of 
finance,  or  considering  the  operation  of  an  existing  tax,  or  fol- 
lowing the  variations  of  trade,  or  tracing  the  influences  of  a  poor- 
law,  or  studying  the  public  health,  or  examining  the  effects  of 
the  criminal  law,  his  conclusions  ought  to  be  principally  guided 
by  statistical  data."  ^ 

Napoleon,  with  that  wonderful  vision  vouchsafed  to  genius, 
saw  the  importance  of  this  science  when  he  said :  "  Statistics  is 

^  Methods  of  Observation  and  Reasoning  in  Politics,  Vol.  I.  p.  134. 


*f  "^" 


4|^  3SM  mNTH  CENSWS. 

tbe  budget  iif  tiuiigs;  and  w^out  a  \mA%!A  Ibene  it  no  public 
si£9ty."  We  may  iiot,  perhaps,  |^  as  far  as  Goetiie  dtd>  and 
declare  tbat  ^figures  govern  ithe  workl";  but  we  can  foltjr 
agree  wil&  Urn  that  "^  they  riuw  how  k  is  governed/' 

BaitMi  Qoetelet,  of  Bdgiiifiiy  *OAe  of  the  cipest  scholars  asd 
profoundestt  studei^  oif  statistical  sciencei  oonchides  his  latest 
dbapto- of  scientific  results  in  Ihese  wor^ :  — 

''One  of  die  print^-resohs  of  dvilizatiQn  is  to  fedtice  moie  and 
iMre^Kmits  within  fiUdilhe  d£feienrdemeB^ of  vodetjrtactnaie. 
1%e  mere  intelEgmce  increases,  Ae  mwe  these  Ikidts  sie  zedaced,  and 
Ifae  iiesrer  we  ap^neach  the  beantifid  and  the  ^^  The  perfectiBailgr 
of  diehani&niqpedes  xesnltsas  aneoessaiy  coDsecpience  of  afl  our  r&> 
aearches.  Hqrsicil  defects  and  monstrosities  aze.fiadna%  dai^ppeaniigi 
tfie^vqmenqr  and  8everi^t>f  disesaes  are  ressted  moie  sucoessfalljr  bjr 
tiie  ^progress  of  medical  sdenoe.  The  mi»al  qualities  of  man  are  pnnr* 
hag  themselves  not  iess  capable  of  inqxrovement ;  and  the  nunre  we  ad- 
nicance,  the  less  weshall  have  need  to  fear  those  great  political  convulsions 
and  wars,  and  thek  attendant  result^  which  are  the  scom^ges  of  mankind." 

It  should  be  added,  that  Ihe  growing  lsq>ortance  oi  political 
science,  as  well  as  its  recent  origin,  is  exhibited  in  the  fact  that 
nearly  every  modem  nation  has  established,  within  the  last  half- 
century,  a  bureau  of  general  statistics  for  the  uses  of  states- 
manship and  science.  The  thirty  states  of  Europe  are  now 
<assiduously  cultivating  the  science.  Not  one  of  their  central 
bureaus  was  fully  organized  before  the  year  1800. 

The  chief  instrument  of  American  statistics  is  the  census, 
which  should  accomplish  a  twofold  object  It  should  serve  the 
country,  by  making  a  full  and  accurate  exhibit  of  the  elements 
of  national  life  and  strength ;  and  it  should  serve  the  science  of 
statistics,  by  so  exhibiting  general  results  that  they  may  be  com- 
pared with  similar  data  obtained  by  other  nations.  In  the  light 
of  its  national  uses,  and  its  relations  to  social  science,  let  us  con- 
sider the  origin  and  development  of  the  American  census. 

During  the  Colonial  period,  several  enumerations  of  the  in- 
habitants of  the  Colonies  were  made  by  order  of  the  British 
iBoard  of  Trade ;  but  no  general  concerted  attempt  was  made  to 
take  a  census  until  after  the  opening  of  the  Revolutionary  war. 
As  illustrating  the  practical  difficulty  of  census-taking  at  that 
time, a  passage  in  a  letter  written  in  1715,  to  the  Lords  of  Trade, 
by  Hunter,  the  Colonial  Governor  of  New  York,  may  be  interest- 
ing :  "  The  superstition  of  this  people  is  so  unsurmountable  that 


THE  NINTH  CENSUS.  457 

I  believe  I  shall  never  be  able  to  obtain  a  complete  list  of  the 
number  of  inhabitants  of  this  Province."  ^  He  then  suggests  a 
computation  based  upon  returns  of  militia  and  of  freemen ;  after- 
ward the  woman  and  children,  and  then  the  servants  and  slaves. 
William  Burnet,  Colonial  Governor  of  New  Jersey,  writing  to 
the  Lords  of  Trade,  June  2, 1726,  after  mentioning  returns  made 
in  1723,  says:  — 

"  I  would  have  then  ordered  the  like  accounts  to  be  taken  in  New 
Jersey,  but  I  was  advised  that  it  might  make  the  people  uneasy,  they 
being  generally  of  a  New  England  extraction  and  thereby  enthusiasts : 
and  that  they  would  take  it  for  a  repetition  of  the  same  sin  that  David 
committed  in  numbering  the  people,  and  might  bring  on  the  like  judg- 
ments. This  notion  put  me  off  from  it  at  that  time,  but  since  your  Lord- 
•  ships  require  it,  I  will  give  the  orders  to  the  sheriffs  that  it  may  be  done 
as  soon  as  may  be."  ^ 

That  this  sentiment  has  not  yet  wholly  disappeared  may  be* 
seen  from  the  fact,  that,  at  a  public  meeting  held  on  the  evening 
of  November  12,  1867,  in  this  city,  pending  the  taking  of  the 
census  of  the  District  of  Columbia  by  the  Department  of  Edu- 
cation and  the  municipal  authorities,  a  speaker,  whose  name  is 
given  in  the  reported  proceedings,  said :  — 

"  I  regard  the  whole  matter  as  illegal  Taking  the  census  is  an  im- 
portant matter.  In  the  Bible  we  are  told  David  ordered  Joab  to  take 
the  census,  when  he  had  no  authority  to  do  so,  and  Joab  was  punished 
for  it.  He  thought  these  parties  [the  Metropolitan  Police]  should  be 
enjoined  from  asking  questions,  and  he  advised  those  who  had  not  re- 
turned the  blank  not  to  fill  it  up,  or  answer  a  single  question." 

As  early  as  1775,  the  Continental  Congress  resolved  that  cer- 
tain of  the  burdens  of  the  war  should  be  distributed  among  the 
Colonies  "  according  to  the  number  of  inhabitants  of  all  ages, 
including  negroes  and  mulattoes,  in  each  Colony";  and  also 
recommended  to  the  several  Colonial  conventions,  councils,  or 
committees  of  safety  to  ascertain  the  number  of  inhabitants  in 
each  Colony,  and  to  make  return  to  Congress  as  soon  as  pos- 
sible. Such  responses  as  were  made  to  this  recommendation 
were  probably  of  no  great  value,  and  are  almost  wholly  lost. 

The  Articles  of  Confederation,  as  reported  by  John  Dickin- 
son in  July,  1776,  provided  for  a  triennial  enumeration  of  the 
inhabitants  of  the  States,  such  enumeration  to  be  the  basis  of 
adjusting  the    "  charges  of  war,  and  all  other   expenses   that 

1  New  York  Colonial  MSS.,  Vol.  V.  p.  459.  *  Ibid.,  p.  777. 


45 8  THE  NINTH  CENSUS. 

should  be  incurred  for  the  common  defence  or  general  >yel- 
fare."  The  eighth  of  the  Articles,  as  they  were  finally  adopted, 
provided  that  these  charges  and  expenses  should  be  defrayed 
out  of  a  common  treasury,  to  "  be  supplied  by  the  several 
States,  in  proportion  to  the  value  of  all  land  within  each  State, 
granted  to  or  surveyed  for  any  person,  as  such  land  and  the 
buildings  and  improvements  thereon  shall  be  estimated,  accord- 
ing to  such  mode  as  the  United  States,  in  Congress  assembled, 
shall  from  time  to  time  direct  and  appoint."  The  ninth  Ar- 
ticle gave  Congress  the  authority  **  to  agree  upon  the  numbers 
of  land  forces,  and  to  make  requisitions  from  each  State  for  its 
quota,  in  proportion  to  the  number  of  white  inhabitants  in  such 
State."  These  Articles  unquestionably  contemplated  a  national 
census,  to  include  a  valuation  of  land  and  an  enumeration  of 
population,  but  they  led  to  no  substantial  results.  When  the 
blanks  in  the  revenue  report  of  1783  were  filled,  the  committee 
reported  that  they  had  been  compelled  to  estimate  the  popu- 
lation of  all  the  States  except  New  Hampshire,  Rhode  Island, 
Connecticut,  and  Maryland. 

The  next  step  is  to  the  Constitutional  Convention  of  1787. 
The  charter  of  government  framed  by  that  body  provided  for 
a  national  census  to  be  taken  decennially.  Moreau  de  Jonnis, 
a  distinguished  French  writer  on  statistics,  refers  to  this  con- 
stitutional provision  in  the  following  elevated  language :  J*  The 
United  States  presents  in  its  history  a  phenomenon  which  has 
no  parallel.  It  is  that  of  a  people  who  instituted  the  statistics 
of  their  country  on  the  very  day  when  they  formed  their  gov- 
ernment, and  who  regulated,  in  the  same  instrument,  the  census 
of  their  citizens,  their  civil  and  political  rights,  and  the  destinies 
of  the  country."^  De  Jonn^s  considers  the  American  census  the 
more  remarkable  because  it  was  instituted  at  so  early  a  date  by 
a  people  very  jealous  of  their  liberties;  and  he  gives  emphasis 
to  his  statement  by  referring  to  the  heavy  penalties  imposed  by 
the  first  law  of  Congress  to  carry  these  provisions  into  effect. 
It  must  be  confessed,  however,  that  the  American  founders 
looked  only  to  practical  ends.  A  careful  search  through  the 
Madison  Papers  has  failed  to  show  that  any  member  of  the 
Convention  considered  the  census  in  its  scientific  bearings.  But 
the  Convention  gave  us  an  instrument  by  which  those  ends  can 
be  reached,  thus  building  wiser  than  they  knew.     In  pursuance 

1  lElements  de  Statistiquc,  (Paris,  1856,)  p.  173. 


THE  NINTH  CENSUS.  459 

of  the  requirements  of  the  Constitution,  an  act  providing  for  an 
enumeration  of  the  inhabitants  of  the  United  States  was  passed, 
March  i,  1790. 

As  illustrating  the  growth  of  the  American  census,  it  is  worth 
observing  that  the  report  of  the  first  census  was  an  octavo  pam- 
phlet of  fifty-two  pages,  and  that  of  1800  a  folio  of  seventy-eight 
pages.  Let  these  pamphlets  be  compared  with  the  census  pub- 
lications of  1850  and  i860. 

On  the  23d  of  January,  1800,  a  memorial  of  the  American 
Philosophical  Society,  signed  by  Thomas  Jefferson  as  its  Presi- 
dent, was  laid  before  the  Senate.  In  this  remarkable  paper, 
written  in  the  spirit  and  interest  of  science,  the  memorialists 
prayed  that  the  sphere  of  the  census  might  be  greatly  extend- 
ed ;  but  it  does  not  appear  to  have  made  any  impression  on  the 
Senate,  for  no  trace  of  it  is  found  in  the  annals  of  Congress. 

The  results  attained  by  the  first  six  censuses  were  meagre  for 
the  purposes  of  science.  That  of  1790  embraced  population 
only,  its  single  schedule  containing  six  inquiries.  That  of  1800 
had  only  a  population  schedule  with  fourteen  inquiries.  In 
1 810,  an  attempt  was  made  to  add  statistics  of  manufactures, 
but  the  results  were  of  no  value.  In  1820,  the  statistics  of 
manufactures  were  again  worthless.  In  1830,  the  attempt  to 
take  them  was  abandoned.  In  1840,  there  were  schedules  of 
population  and  manufactures,  and  some  inquiries  relating  to 
education  and  employments. 

The  law  of  May  23,  1850,  under  which  the  seventh  and 
eighth  censuses  were  taken,  marks  an  important  era  in  the  his- 
tory of  American  statistics.  This  law  owes  many  of  its  wisest 
provisions  and  the  success  of  its  execution  to  Mr.  Joseph  C. 
G.  Kennedy,  under  whose  intelligent  superintendence  the  chief 
work  of  the  last  two  censuses  was  accomplished.  This  law 
marks  the  transition  of  the  American  census  from  the  merely 
practical  to  the  scientific  stage.  The  system  thus  originated 
needs  correction,  to  make  it  conform  to  the  later  results  of 
statistical  science  and  to  the  wants  of  the  American  people. 
Nevertheless,  it  deserved  the  high  commendations  passed  upon 
it  by  some  of  the  most  eminent  statisticians  and  publicists  of 
the  Old  World.  While  recognizing  the  great  relative  merits  of 
the  last  census,  it  is  also  evident  that  the  important  advances 
made  in  social  science,  and  the  great  changes  that  have  occurred 
in  our  country  during  the  last  decade,  require  a  revision  of  the 


46o  THE  NINTH  CENSUS. 

law.  To  this  end,  I  shall  examine  the  principal  defects  in  the 
methods  and  inquiries  of  the  existing  law,  and  shall  point  out 
the  remedies  proposed  in  the  pending  bill. 

I.    Defects  in  the  present  Method  of  taking  the  Census. 

1.  The  work  of  taking  the  census  should  no  longer  be  com- 
mitted to  the  charge  of  the  United  States  marshals.  These 
officers  belong  to  the  judicial  department  of  the  government ; 
are  not  chosen  with  a  view  to  their  fitness  for  census  taking  or 
any  statistical  inquiry;  and,  whether  so  qualified  or  not,  the 
greatly  increased  duties  devolved  upon  them  by  the  revenue 
laws,  the  bankrupt  laws,  and  other  legislation,  since  the  last 
census  was  taken,  make  it  more  difficult  now  than  ever  before 
for  them  to  do  this  work  and  do  it  well ;  and  in  the  popular 
mind  they  are  so  associated  with  arrests  and  seizures,  that  their 
census  visits  will  create  uneasiness  and  suspicion. 

The  unequal  size  of  territory  embraced  in  their  several  dis- 
tricts leads  to  an  unequal  and  unwise  distribution  of  the  duties 
of  supervision,  and  this  injuriously  affects  the  uniformity, 
promptness,  and  efficiency  of  the  work.  One  is  charged  with 
the  supervision  of  all  the  census  work  in  Massachusetts,  with 
its  1,250,000  inhabitants;  while  another  superintends  a  district 
embracing  but  one  half  of  Florida,  and  a  population  of  70,000; 
and  still  another  has  but  one  third  of  Alabama,  and  a  population 
of  320,000. 

There  are  sixty-two  judicial  districts  and  as  many  marshals. 
Thirty-three  of  the  States  and  Territories  compose  each  a 
single  district.  Ten  States  contain  two  districts  each,  and  three 
arc  divided  into  three  districts  each.  This  is  not  only  an  un- 
equal distribution  of  duty,  but  the  growth  of  the  country  has 
-made  many  of  the  districts  too  large  for  any  one  man  to  per- 
form thoroughly  and  expeditiously  the  work  of  supervision. 

2.  Too  much  time  is  allowed  in  taking  the  census  and  pub- 
lishing its  results.  The  law  of  May  23, 1850,  allows  five  months 
in  which  to  make  the  enumeration  and  make  the  returns  to 
Washington,  and  authorizes  the  Secretary  of  the  Interior  to  ex- 
tend the  time  in  certain  cases.  It  contains  no  provision  con- 
cerning the  time  of  publication.  As  a  consequence,  the  main 
report  for  1850  was  not  printed  till  1853,  and  the  volume  relat- 
ing to  manufactures  was  not  printed  till  1859.  The  preliminary 
report  of  i860  was  not  printed  till   1862;  the  full  reports  on 


THE  NINTH  CENSUS.  461 

population  and  agriculture  were  delayed  till  1864,  and  Uiose 
on  manufactures  and  mortality  till  the  end  of  1866. 

It  has  been  strongly  urged  that  the  enumeration  should  be 
made  in  a  single  day ;  and  the  example  of  England  is  cited  to 
show  that  it  is  practicable.  But  it  must  be  remembered  that 
the  inquiries  made  in  the  British  census  are  very  few  in  number, 
and  almost  exclusively  confined  to  facts  of  population.  Gen- 
eral statistics  are  not  provided  for  in  their  census.  Again,  the 
small  extent  of  territory  to  be  traversed  and  the  density  of  the 
population  make  it  possible  to  carry  out  a  plan  there  which 
would  prove  a  disastrous  failure  here,  with  our  vast  areas  and 
sparse  population>  The  census  is  our  only  instrument  of 
general  statistics,  and  must  be  more  elaborate  than  that  of 
countries  having  permanent  statistical  bureaus;  and,  as  our 
^numeration  is  not  of  the  actual  but  of  the  legal  population,  a^ 
longer  time,  say  one  month,  can  safely  be  allowed. 

3.  Another  important  matter  (which  affects  also  the  question 
of  time)  is  the  present  objectionable  method  of  obtaining  the 
population  statistics.  The  census-taker  calls  on  a  family,  and 
spreads  before  them  his  array  of  blanks,  which  they  then  see  for 
tile  first  time.  Suspicions  of  his  inquisitorial  character  must  be 
allayed ;  fears  that  it  is  an  assessment  for  purposes  of  taxation, 
must  be  quieted ;  the  subject  must  be  explained ;  the  memories 
of  the  family  stimulated,  and  the  data  they  furnish  criticised; 
and  recorded.  A  very  capable  gentleman,  who  was  an  assist- 
ant marshal  in  i860,  has  estimated  the  average  time  required 
for  each  family,  exclusive  of  travel,  at  thirty  minutes.  Thus  an 
honest  day's  work  would  accomplish  the  enumeration  of  not 
more  than  twenty  families. 

Far  more  important  than  the  waste  of  time  is  the  inaccuracy 
which  must  result  from  this  method.  It  is  not  reasonable  to 
suppose  that  a  family  can,  in  half  an  hour,  make  anything  like 
a  complete  and  accurate  statement  of  a  great  number  of  details 
to  which  they  have  not  previously  given  any  special  attention. 

4.  The  operations  of  the  Census  Office,  under  the  present 
law,  are  not  sufficiently  confidential.  The  citizen  is  not  ade- 
quately protected  from  the  danger,  or  rather  the  apprehension, 
that  his  private  affairs,  the  secrets  of  his  family  and  his  business, 
will  be  disclosed  to  his  neighbors.  The  facts  given  by  the  mem- 
bers of  one  family  may  be  seen  by  all  those  whose  record  suc- 
ceeds them  on  the  same  blank ;  and  the  undigested  returns  at 


462  THE  NINTH  CENSUS. 

the  central  office  are  not  properly  guarded  against  being  made 
the  quarry  of  book-makers  and  pamphleteers. 

5.  The  rule  of  compensation  is  arbitrary,  complicated,  and  of 
doubtful  wisdom.  One  rule  is  followed  in  paying  the  officers 
and  employees  at  the  central  office ;  another,  for  the  marshals ; 
and  still  another,  for  the  assistant  marshals.^  One  principle  of 
compensation  is  adopted  for  enumerating  the  inhabitants ;  an- 
other, for  taking  the  statistics  of  industry ;  another,  for  mileage ; 
and  still  another,  for  copying  returns.  It  has  been  charged,  on 
what  appear  to  be  reasonable  grounds,  that  these  rules  offer 
temptations  to  exaggerate  some  parts  of  the  returns,  and  to 
make  constructive  charges,  which  swell  the  expenses  to  an  un- 
reasonable degree.  It  should  be  added,  that  the  great  change 
which  has  occurred  in  prices  and  wages  since  the  passage  of 
the  law  makes  the  rule  inapplicable  to  the  present  condition  of 
affairs. 

To  remedy  these  defects,  this  bill  provides  that  the  enumera- 
tion shall  be  made  by  persons  chosen  for  their  special  fitness 
for  such  work,  and  in  no  way  connected  with  the  national  con- 
stabulary, or  with  the  assessment  or  collection  of  taxes.  The 
districts  should  be  much  smaller  than  they  now  are,  —  so  small 
that  one  man  may  intelligently  arrange  the  work,  designate 
census-takers,  of  whose  qualifications  and  fitness  he  may  easily 
have  full  knowledge,  and  personally  supervise  and  unify  all  the 
work  within  his  jurisdiction.     The  Congressional  district  seems 

1  The  law  of  1850  thus  defined  the  compensation  of  the  census-takers:  — 
**  That  each  assistant  shall  be  allowed  as  compensation  for  his  services  after  the 
rate  of  two  cents  for  each  person  enumerated,  and  ten  cents  a  mile  for  necessary 
travel,  to  be  ascertained  by  multiplying  the  square  root  of  the  number  of  dwelling- 
houses  in  the  division  by  the  square  root  of  the  number  of  square  miles  in  each 
division,  and  the  product  shall  be  taken  as  the  number  of  miles  travelled,  for  all  pur- 
poses, in  taking  this  census. 

"  That  in  addition  to  the  compensation  allowed  for  the  enumeration  of  the  in- 
habitants there  shall  be  paid  for  each  farm,  fully  returned,  ten  cents ;  for  each 
establishment  of  productive  industry',  fully  taken  and  returned,  fifteen  cents ;  for 
the  social  statistics,  two  per  cent  upon  the  amount  allowed  for  the  enumeration  of 
population ;  and  for  each  name  of  a  deceased  person  returned,  two  cents." 
In  his  remarks  of  April  6,  1869,  Mr.  Garfield  read  the  following  letter  :  — 
"  Sir,  —  The  rule  which  has  been  adopted  for  the  compensation  of  officers  for 
the  taking  of  the  census  does  not  appear  to  me  to  have  any  sound  foundation  in 
reason,  and  to  be  obviously  inconsistent  with  fact.  It  might  easily  be  perverted  to 
false  uses,  and  I  should  regard  it  as  wiser  and  safer  to  introduce  a  system  of  com- 
pensation which  was  made  dependent  upon  the  good  judgment  and  experience  of 
faithful  and  intelligent  supervision. 

"  Benjamin  Peirce,  Supt.  U.  S,  Coast  Survey** 


THE  NINTH  CENSUS.  4^3 

to  be  the  most  convenient  and  appropriate  unit  of  classification 
for  the  States ;  and  each  Territory  may  properly,  as  under  the 
present  law,  constitute  a  district. 

Separate  schedules,  at  least  for  the  household,  the  farm,  and 
for  manufacturing,  commercial,  and  other  industrial  establish- 
ments, are  to  be  distributed  before  the  day  to  which  the  enu- 
meration relates,  so  that  the  people  may  be  familiarized  with 
the  inquiries  made,  and  that,  as  far  as  possible,  the  blanks  may 
be  filled  up  without  the  aid  of  the  census-taker.  This  will 
insure  greater  correctness,  and  will  greatly  reduce  the  time 
required  for  the  enumeration.  By  the  use  of  these  schedules, 
and  the  organization  provided  in  the  bill,  it  is  believed  that  the 
enumeration  may  actually  be  completed  in  one  month,  begin- 
ning on  the  1st  of  June. 

We  propose  to  put  into  the  law,  and  into  the  official  oath  of 
all  officers  and  employees  of  the  bureau,  a  provision  that  the 
returns  of  the  census  shall  be  confidential,  that  the  business  of 
no  citizen  shall  be  made  public,  and  that  the  returns  of  money 
values  shall  not  in  any  way  be  made  the  basis  of  taxation,  nor 
be  used  as  evidence  in  the  courts.  These  provisions  of  the  law 
should  be  printed  on  the  schedules,  and  the  President  should 
issue  his  proclamation,  calling  upon  all  the  people  to  aid  in 
making  the  returns  as  full  and  accurate  as  possible.  A  liberal 
compensation,  in  the  simple  form  of  salary  or  per  dietfty  with  no 
mileage  or  constructive  charges,  is  provided,  and  the  time  dur- 
ing which  persons  may  receive  compensation  is  carefully  re- 
stricted. A  sufficient  clerical  force  is  provided  in  the  Census 
Office  at  Washington  to  tabulate,  condense,  and  arrange  the 
whole  for  publication  within  two  and  a  half  years  after  the 
returns  are  in.  The  results  ought  to  be  published  in  a  form 
considerably  more  condensed  than  in  the  last  report. 

II.   Defects  in  the  Inquiries  prescribed  in  the  Population  and 
Mortality  Schedules  of  the  present  Law. 

I.  As  numbered  in  the  census  of  i860,  the  first  three  sched- 
ules relate  to  statistics  of  population  and  mortality,  of  which 
the  second  has  exclusive  reference  to  slaves.  We  are  now  hap- 
pily one  people,  and  need  but  one  population  schedule.  All 
the  inquiries  retained  from  the  three  have  been  entered  on  the 
family  schedule,  and,  dropping  the  nine  inquiries  of  the  slave 
schedule,  other  important  ones  have  been  added  without  greatly 


464  7WS  NINTH  CENSUS. 

increasing  the  aggregate  number.  None  of  the  inquiries  of  the 
first  and  third  schedules  have  been  wholly  omitted,  but  several 
have  been  modified.  That  relating  to  color  has  been  made  to 
include  distinctively  the  Chinese,  so  as  to  throw  some  light  on 
the  grave  questions  which  the  arrival  among  us  of  the  Celestials 
has  raised. 

2,  The  committee  believe  that  the  value  of  the  inquiry  in 
regard  to  persons  attending  school  will  be  greatly  enhanced  by 
requiring  the  enumerator  to  enter  under  that  head  the  grade 
of  the  school,  whether  a  common  school,  academy,  college,  or 
professional  school.  This  has  been  done  on  the  schedule  re- 
lating to  educational  institutions.  By  the  old  law  the  registra- 
tioo  of  those  who  c^mnot  read  and  write  is  required  only  ia 
cases  of  persons  twenty  years  of  age  and  upward.  Tim  r^^ 
tration  has  been  extended  to  persons  fifteen  yesirs  (rid.  It  it 
more  important  to  know  how  many  illiterate  persons  tiiere  art 
between  the  agea  of  fifteen  and  twenty  than  at  any  later  period; 
for  between  ten  and  twenty  it  is  usually  determined  ndicdMr 
an  education  ia  guned  or  lost. 

3.  The  last  column  of  the  first  schedule  has  been  so  amended 
as  to  exhibit  more  fully  the  physical  force  of  the  population  of 
the  country.  The  war  has  left  us  so  many  mutilated  men,  that 
a  record  should  be  made  of  those  who  have  lost  a  limb,  or  who 
have  been  otherwise  disabled ;  and  the  committee  have  added 
an  inquiry  to  show  the  state  of  public  health,  and  the  preva- 
lence of  some  of  the  principal  diseases.  Dr.  Edward  Jarvis,  of 
Massachusetts,  one  of  the  highest  living  authorities  on  vital  sta- 
tistics, in  a  masterly  paper  presented  to  the  committee,  urged 
the  importance  of  measuring  as  accurately  as  possible  the  effect- 
ive physical  strength  of  the  people. 

It  is  not  generally  known  how  targe  a  proportion  of  each 
nation  is  wholly  or  partially  unfitted,  by  physical  disability,  for 
self-support  The  statistics  of  France  show  that,  in  1851,  in 
a  population  of  less  than  36,000,000,  the  deaf,  dumb,  blind, 
deformed,  idiotic,  and  those  otherwise  mutilated  or  disabled, 
amounted  to  almost  2,000,000.  We  thus  sec  that,  in  a  coun- 
try of  the  highest  civilization,  the  effective  strength  of  its  popu- 
lation is  reduced  one  eighteenth  by  physical  defects.  What 
general  would  venture  to  conduct  a  campaign  without  ascer- 
taining the  physical  qualities  of  his  soldiers,  as  well  as  the 
number  on  his  rolls?    In  the  great  industrial  battle  which  this 


I 


THE  NINTH  CENSUS.  465 

nation  is  now  fighting,  we  ought  to  take  every  available  means 
to  ascertain  the  effective  strength  of  the  country.  Besides  the 
inquiries  in  these  schedules  that  have  been  amended,  a  few  new 
ones  have  been  added. 

Since  the  present  census  law  was  passed,  an  International 
Statistical  Society  has  been  organized ;  and  some  of  the  pro- 
foundest  scholars  of  Europe  and  America  have  united  to  give 
it  authority  and  efficiency  in  the  treatment  of  social  questions. 
At  several  of  its  sessions  the  subject  of  national  censuses  has 
been  very  ably  and  elaborately  discussed,  and  recommenda- 
tions have  been  made  looking  to  greater  efficiency  and  uni- 
formity both  in  methods  and  inquiries.  A  collation  and 
comparison  of  the  personal  statistics  of  twenty-seven  modern 
states  and  nations  show  that,  in  all  these  states,  there  have  been 
thirty-three  different  inquiries  made  in  regard  to  population. 
From  these  the  International  Congress  selected  eight,  which 
they  recommended  to  all  nations  as  indispensable  for  purposes 
of  general  statistical  science,  and  seven  others,  which  they 
urged  the  use  of  whenever  it  was  practicable.  Two  of  the 
inquiries  urged  by  the  Congress  as  indispensable  are  not  in 
our  old  schedule  of  population,  but  are  here  added.  One  is  the 
relation  of  each  person  to  the  head  of  the  family,  —  whether 
wife,  son,  daughter,  boarder,  servant,  etc. ;  and  the  other  is  the 
civil  or  conjugal  condition  of  each  person,  —  whether  single, 
married,  or  widowed.  These  elements  are  the  leading  factors 
which  determine  the  power  and  value  of  the  family  as  a  social 
and  producing  force,  and  in  them  are  infolded  the  destiny  of 
the  nation. 

It  has  been  strongly  urged,  and  with  good  reason,  that  to  the 
inquiry  for  the  birthplace  there  should  be  added  an  inquiry  for 
the  birthplaces  of  the  father  and  mother  of  each  person.  This 
would  enable  us  to  ascertain  the  relative  fecundity  of  our  Ameri- 
can and  foreign-born  populations.  It  has  lately  been  asserted 
that  the  old  ratio  of  increase  among  our  native  population  is 
rapidly  diminishing.  If  this  be  true,  such  a  vitally  important 
fact  should  be  ascertained,  and  its  full  extent  and  significance 
determined.  An  inquiry  concerning  parentage  was  accordingly 
inserted  in  the  schedule  by  the  committee. 

An  inquiry  was  also  added  in  regard  to  dwelling-houses,  so 

as  to  exhibit  the  several  principal  materials  of  construction,  as 

wood,  brick,  stone,  etc.,  and  the  present  value  of  each.      Few 
VOL.  I.  30 


466  THE  NINTH  CENSUS. 

things  indicate  more  fully  the  condition  of  a  people  than  the 
houses  they  occupy.  The  average  home  is  not  an  imperfect 
picture  of  the  wealth,  comfort,  refinement,  and  civilisation 
of  the  average  citizen.  The  census  ought  to  show  us  how 
comfortable  a  place  is  the  average  American  home,  and  how 
great  a  physical  and  social  force  is  the  average  American 
citizen. 

4.  Two  other  inquiries  not  in  our  schedules  were  suggested 
as  advisable ;  namely,  the  language  spoken  and  the  religion  pro- 
fessed by  each  person.  But  in  a  nation  whose  speech  is  so 
nearly  one  the  first  is  hardly  needed,  in  addition  to  the  light 
that  will  be  thrown  upon  this  question  by  the  record  of  nation- 
ality, and  the  second  might  be  deemed  an  uncalled  for  imperti- 
nence; and  the  committee  therefore  omitted  them. 

5.  I  shall  conclude  the  discussion  of  personal  statistics  with 
one  further  statement. 

The  Thirteenth  and  Fourteenth  Amendments  to  the  national 
Constitution  have  radically  changed  our  representative  system, 
and  provided  for  a  redistribution  of  political  power.  By  the 
former,  two  fifths  of  those  who  were  lately  slaves  are  added  to 
the  representative  population ;  by  the  latter,  the  basis  of  repre- 
sentation for  each  State  is  to  be  determined  by  finding  the  whole 
number  of  male  citizens  of  twenty-one  years  of  age  whose  right 
to  vote  is  denied  or  abridged  for  any  other  reason  than  partici- 
pation in  rebellion  or  other  crime,  and  reducing  the  whole  pop- 
ulation in  the  ratio  which  the  number  thus  excluded  bears  to 
the  whole  number  of  adult  male  citizens. 

The  census  is  our  only  constitutional  means  of  determining 
the  political  or  representative  population.  The  Fourteenth 
Amendment  has  made  that  work  a  difficult  one.  At  the  time  of 
its  adoption,  it  was  generally  understood  that  the  exclusion  ap- 
plied only  to  colored  people  who  should  be  denied  the  ballot 
by  the  laws  of  their  State,  But  the  language  of  the  article 
excludes  all  who  are  denied  the  ballot  on  any  and  all  grounds 
other  than  the  two  specified.  This  has  made  it  necessary  to 
ascertain  what  are  in  fact  the  grounds  of  such  exclusion,  and 
the  Census  Committee  have  compiled  from  the  constitutions 
and  laws  of  the  several  States  a  record  of  exclusions  from 
the  privilege  of  voting,  othenvise  than  on  account  of  rebellion 
or  other  crime,  which  may  be  stated  io  nine  general  classes, 
as  follows ;  — 


y 


THE  NINTH  CENSUS.  467 

1.  On  account  of  race  or  color, 16  States. 

2.  On  account  of  residence  on  lands  ceded  by  the  State  to 

the  United  States 2      ** 

On  account  of  residence  in  State  less  than  required  time 

(6  different  specifications) 33      " 

On  account  of  residence  in  county,  city,  town,  district,  etc. 

(18  different  specifications) 25      " 

3.  Wanting  property  qualifications,  or  nonpayment  of  taxes 

(8  specifications) 8  " 

4.  Wanting  literary  qualifications  (2  specifications)      ...  2  *' 

5.  On  account  of  character  or  behavior  (2  specifications)      .  2  " 

6.  On  account  of  services  in  army  or  navy i  " 

7.  On  account  of  pauperism,  idiocy,  or  insanity  (7  specifi- 

cations)     21      " 

8.  On  account  of  certain  oaths  required  as  preliminary  to 

voting  (2  specifications) 4     ** 

9.  Other  causes  of  exclusion  (2  specifications) 2      " 

After  much  reflection  the  committee  could  devise  no  better 
way  than  to  add  to  the  family  schedule  a  column  for  recording 
those  who  are  voters,  and  another  with  this  heading,  copied  sub- 
stantially from  the  amendment :  "  Citizens  of  the  United  States, 
being  twenty-one  years  of  age,  whose  right  to  vote  is  denied  or 
abridged  on  other  grounds  than  rebellion  or  crime."  It  may  be 
objected  that  this  will  allow  the  citizen  to  be  a  judge  of  the  law 
as  well  as  the  fact,  and  that  it  will  be  diflScult  to  get  true  and 
accurate  answers ;  I  can  only  say  this  is  the  best  method  that 
has  been  suggested. 

Dr.  Jarvis  presented  to  the  committee  an  able  argument  in 
favor  of  taking  the  actual  as  well  as  the  legal  population  of  the 
country.  While  I  acknowledge  the  scientific  value  of  such  an 
enumeration,  yet  it  is  evident  that,  to  take  it  with  sufficient  accu- 
racy, the  enumeration  must  be  made  in  so  short  a  time  as  to 
endanger  the  fulness  and  accuracy  of  answers  in  the  other 
schedules,  and  the  two  results  thus  obtained  would  greatly  com- 
plicate and  increase  the  diflSculty  of  determining  the  represent- 
ative population. 

III.  The  Agricultural  Schedule. 

The  committee  gave  to  this  schedule  a  very  careful  and  pro- 
tracted consideration.  The  schedule  recommended  by  the  Com- 
missioner of  Agriculture  contained  two  hundred  and  forty-six 


468  THB  NINTH  CENSUS. 

columns  of  inquiries.  After  repeated  revisions  and  a>Bsideni^ 
tions  of  the  material  presented,  the  conmiittee  settled  upon  a 
schedule  which  contained  seventy-three  columns,  to  which  a 
few  others  have  been  added  by  the  House,  and  which  is,  I  ven* 
ture  to  claim,  a  great  improvement  on  the  schedule  of  the  old 
law,  which  contained  forty-eight  inquiries.  The  additions  macte 
in  this  bill  may  be  classified  as  follows :  — 

1.  An  mquiry  to  show  by  what  tenure  the  occupier  holdi  his  turn, 
whether  as  owner  or  tenant 

2.  An  extension  of  the  present  classification  of  lands  as  improved  or 
unimproved,  so  as  to  exhibit  separately  the  acres  cultivated  and  not  txir 
tivated,  and  the  acres  of  woodland  and  of  uncultivated  pasture. 

3.  An  inquiry  into  the  value  of  form  buildings  other  than  dwdb^ 
houses. 

4.  An  inquiry  into  the  total  value  of  all  labor  eiqiended  <hi  the  &im 
during  the  year. 

5.  An  inquiry  into  the  average  number  of  cows  milked  dming  die 
year. 

6.  A  separate  exhibit  of  the  cheese  made  on  the  &nn  and  that  ma^ 
at  &ctories. 

7.  Instead  of  the  present  exhibit  of  the  aggregate  value  of  all  slaugh- 
tered animals,  a  separate  statement  of  the  value  of  slaughtered  cattle, 
hogs,  and  sheep. 

8.  A  statement  of  the  value  of  all  the  poultry  on  the  fEirm,  and  the 
value  of  its  product  during  the  year. 

9.  In  addition  to  the  statistics  of  wine  produced,  a  statement  of  the 
value  of  grapes  sold  which  were  not  made  into  wine. 

10.  A  statement,  as  regards  all  the  principal  crops,  of  the  acreage  as 
well  as  the  amount  of  product. 

The  importance  of  this  last  element  cannot  be  overestimated. 
Without  it,  we  cannot  learn  the  yield  of  the  several  products  in 
different  localities,  and  the  increase  or  decrease  of  that  yield  at 
different  periods.  It  is  well  known,  for  example,  that  the  centre 
of  the  wheat  product  has  been  rapidly  moving  West,  but  its 
track  and  rapidity  of  movement  cannot  be  traced  without  know- 
ing both  the  acres  sown  and  the  bushels  produced. 

The  bill  omits  from  the  schedule  water-rotted  hemp.  Hemp 
is  not  thus  treated  in  this  country,  as  in  1850  it  was  supposed  it 
would  be.  It  omits  also  the  silk  culture,  which  has  not  fulfilled 
the  promise  of  the  days  of  Moms  multicaulis. 

It  is  believed  that  the  schedule,  amended  as  above  suggested, 
will  enable  us  to  ascertain  the  elements  of  those  wonderful 


THE  NINTH  CENSUS.  469 

forces  which  have  made  our  country  the  granary  of  the  civil- 
ized world;  will  exhibit  also  the  defects  in  our  agricultural 
methods,  and  stimulate  our  farmers  to  adopt  those  means  which 
have  doubled  the  agricultural  products  of  England  since  the 
days  of  the  Stuarts,  and  have  more  than  doubled  the  comforts 
of  her  people.  The  extent  of  that  great  progress  can  be  seen 
in  such  facts  as  these:  that  "  in  the  reign  of  Henry  VII.  fresh 
meat  was  never  eaten  even  by  the  gentlemen  attendant  on 
a  great  Earl,  except  during  the  short  interval  between  mid- 
summer and  Michaelmas,"^  because  no  adequate  means  were 
known  of  fattening  cattle  in  the  winter,  or  even  of  preventing 
the  death  of  one  fifth  of  their  whole  number  each  year;  that 
Catharine,  queen  of  Charles  II.,  sent  to  Flanders  for  her  salad, 
which  the  wretched  gardening  of  England  did  not  sufficiently 
provide. 

Russia  alone  of  European  states  makes  any  considerable  sur- 
plus contribution  to  the  food  of  the  world.  The  United  States 
must  continue  to  be  the  main  source  of  supply.  The  fact  stated 
by  Mr.  S.  B.  Ruggles,  delegate  of  the  United  States  to  the  In- 
ternational Statistical  Congress  which  met  at  the  Hague  in  Sep- 
tember last,  is  of  startling  importance,  —  that  in  1 868  the  whole 
of  Europe,  with  a  population  of  296,123,293  souls,  produced  ce- 
reals to  the  amount  of  4,784,5 16,604  imperial  bushels,  or  sixteen 
bushels  to  each  person ;  while  the  United  States  during  the  same 
year,  with  a  population  of  39,000,000,  produced  1,405,449,000 
bushels,  or  thirty-six  bushels  to  each  person. 

IV.  Statistics  of  Industry, 

This  schedule,  the  fifth  of  the  series  in  the  old  law,  has  per- 
formed exceedingly  valuable  service  to  the  country  and  to  statis- 
tical science.  It  is  said  to  be  the  first  of  its  kind  ever  successfully 
used  in  any  national  census ;  but  it  can  be  improved  in  several 
particulars. 

I.  There  are  two  serious  defects  in  the  heading  of  the  first 
column,  which  reads  as  follows:  "Name  of  corporation,  com- 
pany, or  individual  producing  articles  to  the  annual  value  of 
$500."   . 

The  first  defect  is  in  the  word  "articles,"  which  has  been 
construed  to  mean  merchantable  articles,  or  such  products  of 
manufacture  as  can  be  done  up  in  packages  and  sold  over  the 

1  Macaulay*s  History  of  England,  Vol.  I.  p.  236. 


470  THE  NINTH  CENSUS. 

counter  as  merchandise.  A  large  proportion  of  all  the  products 
of  industry  cannot  thus  be  handled.  The  carpenter,  mason, 
plasterer,  plumber,  painter,  builders  of  ships,  cars,  bridges,  etc., 
all  perform  most  valuable  labor,  and  their  products  are  houses, 
buildings,  and  structures  of  all  kinds,  —  a  most  important  part 
of  the  fixed  capital  of  the  nation ;  but  these  cannot  be  called 
"  articles  "  in  the  restricted  sense  in  which  the  word  is  employed 
in  tlic  schedule.  A  plumber  in  Washington  has  lately  finished 
a  single  job  amounting  to  $20,OCX3,  but  he  has  produced  no 
"  article"  which  would  be  entered  in  the  schedule,  A  job  of 
genera]  repairs,  however  extensive,  would  not  be  entered.  This 
defect  has  been  remedied  by  requiring,  in  addition  to  the  value 
of  articles  produced,  an  exliibit  of  the  value  of  jobbing  and  re- 
pairing done  within  the  year. 

The  second  defect  in  this  heading  is  the  limitation  of  $500. 
He  must  be  a  very  small  manufacturer  whose  annual  product, 
including  materials,  is  not  more  than  $500.  A  shoemaker  who 
should  make  but  two  pairs  of  boots  per  week  would  show  a 
product  of  more  than  that  amount.  And  yet  it  is  manifest  from 
the  returns  themselves  that  the  products  of  the  great  majority 
of  artisans  were  not  enumerated  in  i860.  For  example,  the 
eighth  census  showed  that  there  were  in  the  United  States 
140,433  manufacturing  establishments,  but  the  products  of  the 
industry  of  only  7,1 1 5  were  reported.  The  population  schedule 
exhibited  in  its  inquiries  concerning  occupation  the  number  of 
persons  belonging  to  each  trade,  while  but  a  small  per  cent  of 
the  product  of  their  industry  was  reported  in  the  industrial 
schedule.  The  following  table  exhibits  the  great  deficiency  in 
this  respect:  — 

Number  reported  in  the  Population  Schedule  as  belonging  to  the  following 
Trades. 

Coopers 43,624 

Blacksmiths 112,357 

Carpenters 241,958 

Painters SI7695 

Number  of  the  same  Trades  the  Product  of  whose  Industry  was  reported 
in  the  Industrial  Schedule. 

Coopers 'iiTSO 

Blacksmiths 15,720 

Carpenters 9,006 

Painters gi« 


THE  NINTH  CENSUS.  47 1 

/Vr  cent  reported. 
Coopers 31.5 

Blacksmiths •         14 

Carpenters 3.7 

Painters i.8 

We  propose  to  remedy  this  defect  by  making  establishments 
the  unit  of  enumeration.  Wherever  there  is  a  manufactory  or 
shop  in  operation,  its  occupants  are  required  to  give  the  facts 
called  for  in  the  schedule.  This  will  include  the  product  of  all 
manufacturers  and  artisans  except  those  at  work  as  journey- 
men, and  in  almost  every  instance  the  latter  and  their  work  will 
be  included  under  the  inquiry  concerning  laborers  employed 
in  the  establishment.  It  is  believed  that  these  changes  will 
greatly  increase  the  completeness  and  value  of  the  results  ob- 
tained. 

In  noticing  the  defects  of  the  heading  of  this  column,  I  am 
strongly  reminded  of  the  statement  of  Moreau  de  Jonnfes,  that 
two  monosyllables  in  the  instructions  to  the  French  census- 
takers,  added  by  a  subordinate  in  the  statistical  bureau,  de- 
stroyed the  whole  value  of  the  French  census  of  1836. 

2.  The  inquiry  in  reference  to  motive  power  has  been  so 
modified  as  to  give  the  specific  kinds,  as  steam,  water,  etc., 
and  the  total  power  reckoned  in  horse-power.  It  is  a  matter  of 
growing  importance  to  know  how  the  labor  of  society  is  being 
distributed ;  to  ascertain  what  part  is  performed  by  the  muscle 
of  man,  and  what  by  the  use  of  machinery.  To  secure  this 
more  fully,  a  statement  of  the  kind  and  number  of  machines, 
such  as  looms,  spinning-jennies,  etc.,  has  also  been  added. 

3.  In  reference  to  labor  and  wages,  the  committee  thought  it 
would  be  useful  to  state  separately  the  number  of  persons  la- 
boring in  an  industrial  establishment  who  are  owners  or  part- 
ners, and  the  number  of  those  who  work  for  wages. 

4.  An  important  class  of  products,  belonging  to  what  the  Ital- 
ian government  has  appropriately  called  "  extractive  industry," 
has  hitherto  been  wholly  neglected  in  our  census,  and  should  be 
provided  for.  I  refer  to  the  products  of  our  mines  and  fisheries, 
and  to  petroleum.  No  further  proof  of  the  propriety  of  this 
addition  is  needed  than  the  fact  that  last  year  our  coal  mines 
must  have  yielded  30,000,000  tons,  our  iron  mines  4,000,000 
tons,  while  from  our  oil  wells  was  exported  over  100,000,000 
gallons  of  petroleum,  in  addition  to  vast  consumption  at  home. 


472  rME  NINTH  CENSUS. 

The  Schedule  of  Industrial  Statistics,  with  the  amendments  pro- 
posed, can  be  used  for  petroleum  and  the  products  of  miQes, 
and  a  special  schedule  has  been  added  for  fisheries. 

V.   Siaiisiks  of  Internal  Commerce. 

In  the  preliminary  law  of  March  3,  1849,  the  Census  Board 
was  directed  to  prepare  a  schedule  of  trade  and  commerce, 
but  no  such  schedule  appeared  in  the  law  of  185a  It  has  beoBi 
the  habit  to  treat  the  exchangers  of  wealtib^-tfae  middlemen 
who  transport  and  buy  and  sell  -*  as  belonging  to  the  unpro- 
ductive class.  But  an  enlightened  political  economy  mil  rec^ 
ognize  all  as  producers  of  wealth  who  give  value  to  commodities 
by  bringing  them  witibin  easy  reach  of  tibe  consumer,  and  aid  in 
facilitating  exchanges.  According  to  the  census  of  i860,  Ihore 
were  in  the  United  States  13,340,000  men  and  women  above 
nineteen  years  of  age;  and  there  were  227,177  persons  set 
down  in  the  list  of  occujpations  as  persons  engs^ed  in  trade,  or 
one  in  fifty-eight  of  the  adult  population  of  the  country.  There 
can  be  no  adequate  defence  for  omitting  this  large  and  intelli- 
gent class  of  the  community  from  the  records  of  national 
industry. 

1.  A  simple  and  comprehensive  schedule  for  all  persons  en- 
gaged in  trade  was  laid  before  the  Census  Committee  by  Gen- 
eral Francis  A.  Walker,  of  the  Treasury  Department,  and  has 
been  made  a  part  of  this  bill.  It  follows  the  general  plan  of  the 
Industrial  Schedule  in  regard  to  labor  and  wages,  and  requires, 
in  addition,  a  statement  of  the  amount  of  capital  invested  in 
trade,  and  the  gross  annual  amount  of  purchases  and  sales. 

2.  Without  adding  to  the  duties  of  the  enumerators,  the  bill 
requires  the  Superintendent  of  the  Census  at  Washington  to 
procure  full  statistics  of  railroad,  lake,  river,  and  canal  trans- 
portation, exhibiting,  among  other  facts,  the  number  of  persons 
employed,  the  amount  of  freight  and  cost  of  transportation. 
Such  inquiries  in  regard  to  railroads  are  now  made  in  Ohio  by 
authority  of  the  legislature,  and  the  results  are  exceedingly 
valuable.  The  bill  also  requires  full  statistics  of  express  and 
telegraph  companies,  and  of  life,  fire,  and  marine  insurance 
companies. 

Now  that  the  great  question  of  human  slavery  is  removed 
from  the  arena  of  American  politics,  I  am  persuaded  that  the 
next  great  question  to  be  confronted  will  be  that  of  corpora- 


THE  NINTH  CENSUS.  473 

tions,  and  their  relation  to  the  interests  of  the  people  and  to  the 
national  life.  The  fear  is  now  entertained  by  many  of  our  best 
men  that  the  national  and  State  legislatures  of  the  Union,  in 
creating  these  vast  corporations,  have  evoked  a  spirit  which  may 
defy  their  control  and  escape,  and  which  may  wield  a  power 
greater  than  that  of  legislatures  themselves.  The  rapidity  with 
which  railroad  corporations  have  been  consolidated  and  placed 
within  the  grasp  of  a  few  men  during  the  past  year  is  not 
the  least  alarming  manifestation  of  this  power.  Without  here 
discussing  the  right  of  Congress  to  legislate  on  all  the  matters 
suggested  in  this  direction,  the  committee  have  provided  in  this 
bill  for  arming  the  Census  Office  with  authority  to  demand 
from  these  corporations  a  statement  of  the  elements  of  their 
power  and  an  exhibit  of  their  transactions. 

3.  We  have  also  provided  for  full  statistics  in  regard  to 
the  business  of  fire  and  marine  insurance.  It  is  reported  in 
the  columns  of  a  journal  published  by  the  insurance  institu- 
tions, that  there  is  at  the  present  moment  in  this  country 
$3,092,000,000  of  insurance  against  fire  and  marine  losses. 
Since  the  census  of  i860  was  taken,  the  life  insurance  business 
of  the  country  has  grown  up  from  almost  nothing  to  enormous 
proportions.  For  instance,  there  were  in  i860  but  seventeen 
life  insurance  companies  in  the  United  States,  and  fifty-six 
thousand  and  some  odd  policies  in  force.  In  1868,  the  statis- 
tics of  that  year  being  the  latest  I  have,  there  were  fifty-five  life 
insurance  companies,  with  537,594  policies  in  force,  amounting 
to  the  enormous  sum  of  $1,528,000,000.  Now,  whether  these 
companies  are  sound  or  not,  whether  the  people  may  rely  upon 
the  safe  investment  of  the  money  which  they  have  put  into  their 
hands,  will  altogether  depend  upon  the  way  in  which  they  are 
conducting  their  business ;  and  we  propose  by  this  bill  to  bring 
out  the  facts  so  that  the  country  may  see  what  are  the  opera- 
tions of  these  great  corporations. 

VI.    Social  Statistics, 

Under  this  head  there  were  forty-eight  inquiries  in  the  old  law, 
several  of  which  in  practice  proved  almost  worthless.  Those 
concerning  taxation  and  the  aggregate  value  of  real  and  of  per- 
sonal estate,  the  character  of  the  seasons  and  the  crops,  and  the 
rate  of  wages  for  the  different  kinds  of  labor,  failed  to  produce 
results  which  were  considered  worthy  of  publication  in  the  final 


474  THE  NINTH  CENSUS. 

report.  In  the  pending  bill,  some  of  these  inquiries  are  omitted 
altogether,  and  the  others  are  placed  in  other  schedules,  where 
they  are  more  likely  to  be  answered.  Besides  these  modifica- 
tions, several  additions  have  been  made  to  this  branch  of  the 
census. 

1.  A  more  extended  schedule  for  educational  institutions  has 
been  provided,  which  will  call  for,  not  only  the  number  of  teach- 
ers and  pupils  in  our  common  schools  and  other  institutions  of 
learning,  but  also  the  total  amount  of  money  which  the  nation 
has  permanently  invested  in  education,  together  with  the  annual 
amount  paid  for  its  support. 

2.  The  inquiries  concerning  churches  and  religious  worship 
have  also  been  somewhat  extended,  so  as  to  obtain  a  report  of 
the  amounts  of  money  permanently  and  annually  invested  in 
religious  enterprises,  and  also  the  number  of  children  in  Sun- 
day schools  under  the  supervision  of  churches.  In  the  inqui- 
ries concerning  libraries  a  column  has  been  added,  which  will 
exhibit  the  annual  cost  of  the  maintenance  and  increase  of  those 
institutions,  and  another  showing  the  date  of  their  establish- 
ment, from  which  may  be  learned  the  increase  of  the  aggregate 
number. 

3.  In  the  statistics  of  newspapers  and  other  periodicals,  the 
committee  propose  an  important  modification,  which  requires 
the  Superintendent  of  the  Census  to  obtain  a  copy  of  each  news- 
paper and  periodical  in  the  United  States,  together  with  a  state- 
ment of  its  circulation.  From  the  papers  themselves  can  be 
gathered  all  the  important  facts  which  it  is  desirable  to  know 
concerning  this  kind  of  industry,  and  the  copies  thus  obtained 
are  to  be  classified  and  bound  up  for  preservation  in  the  archives 
of  the  government.  What  would  we  not  give  for  a  similar  collec- 
tion for  each  decade  since  the  foundation  of  the  government? 
What  more  striking  exhibit  of  the  country's  progress  in  this 
respect  could  be  made? 

I  am  painfully  conscious  of  the  imperfections  of  this  measure, 
and  I  am  quite  sure  that  no  gentleman,  who  has  not  given  spe- 
cial attention  to  the  matter,  is  likely  to  appreciate  the  difliculty 
of  framing  a  complete  and  satisfactory  bill  on  the  subject.  I 
may  be  permitted  to  say  that  the  sub-committee  gave  to  the 
subject  many  weeks  of  careful  study;  and  in  presenting  this 
bill  as  the  result  of  their  labors,  although  aware  of  its  imper- 
fections, they  confidently  believe  it  is  a  great  improvement  on 


THE  NINTH  CENSUS.  475 

the  present  law,  and  trust  that  it  will  be  made  the  basis  of  still 
greater  improvement  in  coming  decades. 

It  must  be  borne  in  mind  that,  if  our  national  statistics  are  to 
be  taken  with  completeness,  we  must  lay  more  stress  on  the 
Census  than  do  the  states  of  Europe.  They  have  bureaus  of 
statistics  permanently  established  and  under  the  direction  of  ex- 
perienced statisticians ;  with  us  such  a  bureau  is  still  a  desidera- 
tum. The  great  advantages  attending  such  an  establishment 
are  thus  forcibly  stated  by  Dr.  E.  M.  Snow,  the  eminent  statis- 
tician of  Rhode  Island,  in  a  letter  addressed  to  the  Census  Com- 
mittee :  — 

"  I  sincerely  hope  that,  in  the  statute  organizing  the  census  of  1870, 
provision  will  be  made  for  the  establishment  of  a  permanent  census 
bureau  ;  or,  better  still,  (notwithstanding  one  failure,)  a  permanent  statis- 
tical bureau.  The  reasons  for  this  are  perfectly  conclusive  to  all  who  are 
acquainted  with  the  collection  and  compilation  of  statistics.  The  great- 
est defects  in  all  our  censuses  have  been  owing  to  the  want  of  knowledge 
and  of  experience  in  those  employed  upon  them.  We  are  almost  desti- 
tute of  men  in  this  country,  except  in  three  or  four  States,  who  are 
familiar  with  the  practical  duties  required  in  taking  a  census.  The  whole 
country  needs  educating  on  this  subject;  A  permanent  bureau,  with  an 
efficient  head,  would  soon  organize  a  corps  of  men  in  each  State,  who 
would  be  familiar  with  the  information  to  be  obtained,  and  with  the  best 
methods  of  obtaining  it. 

"  On  the  score  of  economy,  also,  a  permanent  bureau  would  be  the 
cheapest.  With  a  corps  of  clerks  educated  in  the  best  methods  of  doing 
their  duties,  and  with  trained  men  to  obtain  the  information,  and  by  mak- 
ing use  of  local  officers  and  other  sources  of  information  in  different 
States,  I  am  perfectly  confident  that  a  permanent  census  bureau  could 
obtain  all  the  information  now  obtained  by.  a  decennial  census,  except 
that  relating  to  population,  and  could  obtain  it  every  year,  with  no  greater 
expense  than  is  now  required  to  obtain  it  once  in  ten  years.  The  effi- 
ciency and  economy,  in  statistical  matters,  of  men  familiar  with  their 
duties,  are  greater  beyond  comparison  than  of  men  who  are  ignorant  of 
these  duties. 

"  A  permanent  national  bureau  of  statistics  is  also  very  much  needed 
to  systematize  the  whole  subject,  to  give  information  to  all  portions  of  the 
country,  and  to  take  the  lead  in  the  organization  of  similar  bureaus  in 
the  several  States.  WTien  such  bureaus  become  general  in  all  the  States, 
the  national  government  will  be  able,  with  their  assistance,  to  obtain  all 
the  statistics  now  obtained  by  the  national  census,  and  much  more,  far 
more  frequently,  far  more  correctly,  and  with  much  less  expense."  * 

1  Letter  to  the  Select  Committee  on  Census  of  1870,  dated  February  16,  1869. 


We  have  already  a  Commissioner  of  Mining  Statistics,  some 
provisions  in  the  Treasury  Department  for  financial  statistics, 
a  Bureau  of  Education  whose  chief  function  is  to  collect  educa- 
tional statistics,  and  some  attention  is  given  to  statistics  ia  tiie 
Department  of  Agriculture.  It  is  greatly  to  be  regretted  tliat 
these  statistical  forces  have  not  been  consolidated,  the  scope  of 
their  work  enlarged,  and  the  whole  thoroughly  oi^ranized ;  all  of 
which  could  be  done  at  an  expense  not  greatly  increased.  But 
at  this  late  day  it  is  manifestly  impossible  to  oi^anize  and  equip 
a  permanent  statistical  bureau  in  time  to  take  the  next  census; 
and  hence,  regret  it  as  we  may,  we  must  again  depend  wholly 
on  die  Census  Office. 

The  American  census  should  furnish  a  muster-roll  of  the 
American  people,  showing,  as  far  as  it  is  possible  for  figuies  to 
show,  their  vital,  physical,  intellectual,  and  moral  power;  it 
should  provide  us  with  an  inventory  of  the  nation's  wealth, 
and  show  us  how  it  is  invested;  it  should  exhibit  the  rela- 
tion of  population  to  wealth,  by  showing  the  distribution  of 
the  one  and  the  vocations  and  industries  of  the  other.  The 
Ninth  Census  of  the  United  States  will  be  far  more  interest- 
ing and  important  than  any  of  its  eight  predecessors.  Since 
1850,  in  spite  of  its  losses,  the  republic  has  doubtless  greatly 
increased  in  population  and  in  wealth.  It  has  taken  a  new  posi- 
tion among  the  nations.  It  has  passed  through  one  of  the  most 
bloody  and  exhaustive  wars  of  history.  The  time  for  reviewing 
its  condition  is  most  opportune.  Questions  of  the  profoundest 
interest  demand  answers.  Has  the  loss  of  nearly  half  a  million 
young  and  middle-aged  men,  who  fell  on  the  field  of  battle  or 
died  in  hospitals  or  prisons,  diminished  the  ratio  of  increase 
of  population?  Have  the  relative  numbers  of  the  sexes  been 
sensibly  changed?  Has  the  relative  number  of  orphans  and 
widows  perceptibly  increased  ?  Has  the  war  affected  the  distri- 
bution of  wealth,  or  changed  the  character  of  our  industries? 
And,  if  so,  in  what  manner  and  to  what  extent?  What  have 
been  the  effects  of  the  struggle  on  the  educational,  benevolent, 
and  religious  institutions  of  the  country?  These  questions,  and 
many  more  of  the  most  absorbing  interest,  the  census  of  1870 
should  answer.  If  it  do  not,  the  failure  will  reflect  deep  dis- 
grace on  the  American  name. 


THE   CANVASS   IN   OHIO. 

SPEECH  DELIVERED  AT  MOUNT  VERNON,   OHIO, 

August  14,  1S69. 


MR.  Chairman  and  Fellow-citizens,  —  I  am  glad  that 
the  campaign  begins,  so  far  as  you  and  I  are  concerned, 
on  so  pleasant  an  occasion,  and  under  such  favorable  circum- 
stances; that  you  are  comfortably  seated,  and  ready  to  con- 
sider calmly  and  without  passion  the  issues  of  the  campaign 
now  opening ;  and  I  trust  that  we  shall  deliberate  to-night  not 
so  much  in  the  spirit  of  partisans  as  of  men  who  are  inquir- 
ing what  are  the  wants  and  interests  of  our  country.  Of  course 
it  cannot  be  left  out  of  sight  that  there  are  in  Ohio  two  great 
political  parties  that  have  put  forth  their  doctrines,  and  entered 
the  field  to  contest  before  you  the  merits  of  the  various  points 
on  which  they  differ.  To  discuss  these  differences,  and  their 
relations  to  the  situation  of  the  country,  is  my  purpose  to-night. 
In  the  outset,  fellow-citizens,  I  call  your  attention  to  the  very 
peculiar  political  situation  in  which  the  Democratic  party 
is  now  placed;  I  desire  to  say  that  I  wish  that  that  party 
might  be  just  as  good,  true,  pure,  and  worthy  a  party  as  possi- 
ble. I  do  not  rejoice  when  the  Democratic  party  acts  badly, 
and  is  found  unworthy.  I  wish  they  might  be  so  true  and  so 
worthy  that  it  would  make  but  little  difference  to  the  country 
which  of  the  two  parties  should  come  into  power.  I  wish  that 
party  was  so  patriotic  in  all  its  doctrines  and  aspirations  that  it 
might  exert  a  beneficial  and  salutar}'-  influence  on  the  policy 
and  conduct  of  the  Republican  party,  so  that  if  we  went  astray, 
or  took  up  any  false  doctrines,  or  in  any  way  became  untrue  to 
the  people,  the  Democratic  party  might  chastise  us  by  taking 
our  place  and  serving  the  State  more  worthily  than  we  had 
done.    I  am  therefore  grieved  to  see  the  Democrats  in  this  cam- 


478  THE  CANVASS  IN  OHIO. 

paign  taking  positions  so  revolutionary  that,  in  my  opinion,  it 
would  be  a  vast  calamity  to  the  country  should  they  get  into 
power.  Believing  this,  I  desire  to  call  your  attention  to  their 
attitude  at  the  present  time. 

In  the  first  place,  fellow-citizens,  the  Democratic  party  at- 
tempted in  this  campaign  to  take  what  they  called  "  a  new  de- 
parture." Their  old  leaders  had  been  meeting  with  a  series  of 
terrible  and  crushing  defeats,  and  the  thoughtful  men  of  the 
party  saw  that  a  change  in  the  line  of  march  was  their  only 
hope.  From  1 860  onward,  every  step  the  Democracy  has  taken 
has  led  to  defeat.  Last  summer  I  know  that  the  wisest  men  in 
that  party  felt,  and  did  not  hesitate  to  say,  that  it  was  absolutely 
impossible  for  them  to  succeed  unless  they  changed  their  line  of 
march.  An  attempt  was  made  in  the  New  York  Convention 
last  year  to  move  in  a  new  direction,  and  try  the  chances  of  suc- 
cess by  the  nomination  of  Salmon  P.  Chase;  in  which  purpose 
they  came  very  near  succeeding.  The  purpose  at  that  time  was 
to  wash  from  the  Democratic  party  the  stains  which  the  Rebel- 
lion left  upon  it.  In  view  of  their  known  sympathy  with  the 
Rebellion,  their  known  hostility  to  our  party  in  putting  down 
the  Rebellion,  their  stout  resistance  to  every  measure  to  over- 
throw slavery  and  build  up  freedom  in  the  country,  the  most 
thoughtful  and  philosophic  men  in  the  party  said,  *'  We  must 
wash  away  these  stains;  wc  must  forsake  the  old  party,  must 
strike  out  a  new  course,  and  let  the  dead  past  bury  its  dead." 
And  they  came  very  near  to  taking  up  this  new  line  of  march  in 
their  attempt  to  nominate  Chief  Justice  Chase;  but  they  failed 
to  make  that  nomination,  and  of  course  they  failed  in  the  elec- 
tion, as  they  had  been  doing  for  eight  years. 

This  year  the  Democracy  of  Ohio,  smarting  under  accumu- 
lated defeats  suffered  at  our  hands  during  the  last  decade,  re- 
solved that  they  would  indeed  take  **  a  new  departure."  When 
they  met  in  Columbus  on  the  7th  of  July  last,  notwithstanding 
their  old  leaders  were  there,  notwithstanding  a  large  part  of  the 
Convention  favored  the  nomination  of  Mr.  Pendleton  for  Gov- 
ernor, and  another  large  part  favored  the  nomination  of  Judge 
Ranney  or  some  other  well-known  leader  of  the  old  school, 
yet  so  deeply  was  the  party  penetrated  with  the  conviction 
that  on  the  old  line  and  with  the  old  leaders  nothing  but 
defeat  awaited  them,  that  a  majority  of  the  Convention  broke 
the  slate,  turned  their  backs  upon  their  old  leaders,  and,  in  the 


THE  CANVASS  IN  OHIO.  479 

hope  of  washing  away  the  stains  of  the  past,  nominated  a  dis- 
tinguished Union  General  of  the  late  war,  whom  they  believed 
to  be  personally  disaffected  toward  the  President  of  the  United 
States  and  toward  the  Republican  party.  This  was  a  great  rev- 
olution in  the  Democratic  party ;  it  was  not  only  a  revolution, 
but  it  was  an  acknowledgment  that  defeat  lay  in  the  old  direc- 
tion, and  that  their  only  hope  was  in  a  new  line  of  march  under 
a  new  leader.     This  leader  was  General  W.  S.  Rosecrans. 

For  General  Rosecrans  personally  I  have  none  but  words  of 
kindness.  I  love  to  speak  of  him  as  a  friend,  —  as  a  man  who 
has  done  much  for  his  country  during  its  great  struggle,  —  as  a 
man  who,  by  his  personal  valor  and  by  his  clear  conception  of 
the  nature  of  the  Rebellion,  achieved  a  reputation  and  made  a 
record  which  will  always  form  an  in^portant  part  of  American 
history.  And  I  desire  to  say  that  I  could  not  believe  that  he 
would  accept  the  nomination.  However  great  his  personal  dis- 
agreements might  have  been,  however  much  he  may  have  been 
ahenated  from  any  men  or  set  of  men  in  the  Republican  party, 
he  could  not,  with  the  least  regard  to  his  own  history,  have 
accepted  the  nomination. 

There  were  men  in  our  army  who  fought  gallantly,  simply  be- 
cause they  believed  it  to  be  their  duty  to  obey  orders.  Though 
these  orders  may  have  been  distasteful  to  them,  though  the 
object  for  which  the  war  was  waged  may  have  been  obnoxious 
to  them,  yet  when  their  superior  officers  commanded,  they 
obeyed  as  a  matter  of  soldierly  honor.  General  Rosecrans  was 
not  a  man  of  that  sort.  His  opinions  were  all  convictions.  He 
was  intensely  right  or  intensely  wrong,  but  never  indifferent.  I 
knew  but  few  men  who  from  the  very  beginning  of  the  war  saw 
more  clearly  into  the  heart  of  the  Rebellion,  and  hated  it  with 
more  intensity,  than  General  Rosecrans.  He  looked  upon  the 
Rebellion  as  a  crime  which  sapped  the  very  foundations  of  the 
Union,  and  upon  the  leaders  of  the  Rebellion  as  personal  crimi- 
nals in  the  eyes  of  God  and  man. 

Not  only  were  these  the  views  he  held  concerning  the  Rebels 
themselves,  but  he  held  stronger  and  more  decided  convictions, 
if  possible,  concerning  all  men  here  in  the  North  who  in  any 
degree  sympathized  with  them.  I  trust  that  during  those  days 
I  sufficiently  felt  and  expressed  my  hostility  to  those  men  who 
not  only  refused  to  help  put  down  the  Rebellion,  but  did  all  in 
their  power  to  stop  the  progress  of  those  who  were  putting  it 


compared  ^M 
'Me  GeoeraX   ^M 


480  Tff£   CANl'ASS  IN  OHIO. 

down ;  but  all  my  utterances  were  tame  and  gentle  1 
with  his.  Read  his  scorching  letter  addressed  to  the  ( 
Assembly  of  Ohio  in  18G3,  in  which  he  denounces  in  the  most 
unmeasured  terms  those  men  who  talked  about  "  peace  on  any 
terms."  And  nobody  had  any  doubt  about  whom  he  referred 
to.  The  Cincinnati  Enquirer  quoted  his  language  at  the  time, 
and  said,  "We  accept  this  as  referring  to  us;  we  so  understand 
it,  and  shall  treat  the  writer  accordingly." 

On  the  subject  of  slavery,  what  general  during  the  whole  war 
was  more  decided  in  his  convictions  than  General  Roi 
No  sooner  had  the  Proclamation  of  Emancipation  been  issued, 
than  he  at  once  used  all  his  authority  to  carry  it  into  execution. . 
It  was  looked  upon  as  a  bnitum  fulmert.  The  people  of  the 
South  said,  "  We  have  our  slaves;  let  Mr.  Lincoln  proclaim  as 
much  as  he  pleases,  we  will  keep  them."  Not  three  days  had 
elapsed  after  the  proclamation  was  issued  before  General  Rose- 
crans  was  giving  certificates  of  freedom  to  all  slaves  within  his 
department,  and  enforcing  their  right  to  freedom.  And  no  one 
of  his  officers  will  forget,  when  a  Kentucky  major  offered  his' 
resignation  "  because  the  President  of  the  United  Slates  had 
meddled  with  slave  property,"  how  fiercely  that  officer  was  re- 
buked, and  how  severely  he  was  punished,  by  being  dishonora- 
bly dismissed  from  the  service. 

Who  will  forget  the  promptness  with  which  he  sent  beyond 
his  lines  that  Democratic  leader,  ValJandigham,  who  had  been 
tried  and  convicted  as  an  enemy  of  his  country?-  Nor  will  the 
officers  at  the  head-quarters  of  the  Army  of  the  Cumberland 
forget  that  on  the  14th  of  October,  1863,  when  a  citizen  of  Ohio 
was  leaving  for  home.  General  Rosecrans  said,  "Tell  them  that 
this  army  would  have  given  a  stronger  vote  for  Brough,  had  not 
Vallandigham's  friends  over  yonder  killed  two  or  three  thousand 
Ohio  voters  the  other  day  at  Chickamauga." 

The  only  fact  in  General  Rosecrans's  career  that  could  have 
endeared  him  to  the  Democracy  was  his  personal  hostility  to 
General  Grant,  and  his  unfortunate  negotiations  with  the  Rebel 
generals  at  White  Sulphur  Springs  last  year.  But  in  view  of 
his  record  and  his  war  doctrines,  the  Democratic  party  could 
not  in  any  other  way  more  absolutely  have  abandoned  their  old 
paths,  so  far  as  leadership  was  concerned,  than  by  his  nomina- 
tion. In  doing  that  they  grasped  at  their  only  hope  of  success, 
feeble  as  it  was.     Fortunately  for  his  fame,  he  declined  the  nomi- 


I 

i 


THE   CANVASS  IN  OHIO,  481 

nation,  and  the  Democracy,  thus  thrown  into  utter  confusion, 
turned  back  to  their  old  defeated  leaders,  and  resumed  the 
beaten  track  that  has  for  nine  years  led  them  to  almost  uniform 
defeat.  The  nomination  of  General  Rosecrans  was  an  enormous 
confession,  the  full  significance  of  which  can  be  understood  only 
when  we  look  at  the  man  and  his  career  in  contrast  with  the 
career  of  Mr.  Pendleton,  whom  they  have  now  nominated.  In 
Mr.  Pendleton  they  have  a  man  who  made  it  a  point  of  honor 
to  do  nothing  to  help  forward  the  war,  —  who  from  the  beginning 
to  the  end  of  his  Congressional  career  has  left  a  record  wherein 
is  not  written  one  line  that  indicates  his  sympathy  with  the 
Union  cause  as  against  armed  rebellion.  He  is  a  leader  of  the 
old  regime,  —  their  proper  leader  in  this  campaign. 

I  suppose  it  is  not  reasonable  to  expect  such  a  conversion 
as  Saul  of  Tarsus  experienced  on  his  way  to  Damascus.  We 
cannot  expect  such  a  change  all  at  once  in  a  political  party. 
Though  the  Democracy  tried  to  take  up  *'  a  new  line  of  depart- 
ure," so  far  as  the  choice  of  a  candidate  was  concerned,  they^ 
did  not  complete  the  work  by  making  a  platform  to  suit  They 
did,  however,  omit  their  usual  talk  about  the  war.  They  did! 
not  say  a  word  against  the  draft,  not  one  word  about "  Lincoln's 
hirelings,"  not  one  word  about  '*  the  hellish  crusade  against  the 
South  " ;  they  left  all  that  off,  to  make  it  possible  that  a  Union 
General  might  be  their  leader.  But  in  all  other  respects  sub- 
stantially the  same  old  doctrines  are  retained  in  their  platform. 
Instead  of  attacking  the  war,  they  content  themselves  with  at- 
tacking the  results  of  it.  Hitherto  we  have  found  them  attack- 
ing the  war,  and  the  men  and  measures  employed  in  carrying  it 
on ;  now  we  find  them  attacking  only  the  results.  I  wilt  notice 
only  a  few  points  in  their  platform. 

First,  we  find  them  attacking  the  public  debt.  Everybody 
knows  they  hate  the  debt.  They  hated  it  from  the  beginning, 
not  so  much  because  it  was  a  debt,  as  because  it  means  the  war ; 
because  it  means  restored  liberty ;  because  it  means  a  crushed 
rebellion ;  because  it  means  slavery  abolished ;  because  it 
means  freemen  everywhere ;  because  it  means  all  the  suffering, 
all  the  heroism,  all  the  honor  of  the  war,  expressed  in  the  form 
of  a  national  obligation.  The  debt  meaning  all  thiis,  it  is  the 
most  natural  thing  in  the  world  that  the  Democracy  should 
hate  it.  They  hate  all  who  produced  it,  and  the  product  itself; 
and  so  the  first  resolution  is  this :  "  That  the  exemption  from 

VOL.  I.  31 


482  THE   CANVASS  IN  OHIO, 

taxation  of  twenty-five  hundred  million  of  dollars  in  govern- 
ment bonds  and  securities  is  unjust  to  the  people,  and  ought 
not  to  be  tolerated,  and  that  we  are  opposed  to  any  appro- 
priation for  the  payment  of  interest  on  the  federal  bonds  until 
they  are  made  subject  to  federal  taxation." 

Think  of  that  for  a  moment.  I  wish  the  Democratic  party 
would  not  make  it  necessary  for  us  to  dispute  with  them  on 
matters  of  fact.  Why  do  they  say  twenty-five  hundred  mil- 
lion of  dollars  of  bonds,  when  they  know  perfectly  well  that, 
with  the  bonds  of  all  sorts  and  the  volume  of  greenback  cur- 
rency added,  the  whole  debt  does  not  reach  that  sum?  Why  do 
they  say  this,  when  they  know  the  bonds  of  the  United  States 
are  five  hundred  million  dollars  less  than  that  sum?  They  think 
the  mass  of  the  people  are  not  well  informed  in  regard  to  these 
things,  and  that  this  exaggerated  statement  will  carry  more 
force  than  the  truth.  Their  platform  begins  with  this  reckless 
misstatement,  which  they  know  to  be  such  every  month  when 
they  read  the  official  statement  of  the  public  debt. 

They  are  opposed  to  paying  the  interest  on  the  public  debt 
until  the  bonds  are  taxed ;  yet  every  intelligent  man  among 
them  knows  that  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States  makes  it 
impossible  for  the  States  to  tax  these  bonds.  They  know  it  has 
been  decided,  over  and  over  again,  from  Chief  Justice  Marshall 
down  to  Chief  Justice  Chase,  that  it  cannot  be  done.  If  every 
State  in  the  Union  should  pass  laws  to  tax  the  bonds,  not  one 
cent  would  be  collected.  They  know  this,  and  yet  they  say  they 
are  not  willing  that  the  interest  shall  be  paid,  until  that  uncon- 
stitutional and  impossible  thing  shall  be  done.  This  absurd 
thing  our  Democratic  legislature  of  last  winter  attempted,  and 
that,  too,  with  a  full  knowledge  of  its  absurdity.  But  some  one, 
perhaps,  will  say  they  mean  that  the  general  government  itself 
shall  tax  them.  I  answer,  that  the  government  does  tax  the 
income  on  these  bonds,  as  it  taxes  incomes  on  the  products  of 
the  manufacturer,  and  other  industry. 

Look  a  little  further.  In  their  second  resolution  they  declare 
that  they  still  indorse  the  old  Pendletonian  plan  of  paying  off 
the  bonds  in  greenbacks ;  and  that,  if  their  payment  in  gold  is 
persisted  in,  it  will  lead  to  repudiation.  They  know  perfectly 
well  that  that  issue  was  tried  last  November  throughout  the 
United  States,  and  decided  against  Mr.  Pendleton  and  in  favor 
of  the  honest  payment  of  those  bonds ;  and  they  say  that  de- 


THE  CANVASS  IN  OHIO.  483 

cision  is  going  to  bring  about  repudiation.  This  resolution  is, 
in  my  judgment,  the  forerunner  of  proposed  repudiation,  and 
can  mean  nothing  else. 

I  desire  to  call  attention,  for  a  moment,  to  this  doctrine  of  Mr. 
Pendleton,  which  has  given  him  such  a  conspicuous  place  during 
the  past  two  years.  His  proposition  was,  that  the  interest  which 
the  government  was  paying  on  these  bonds  could  be  saved  by 
paying  off  the  debt  in  greenbacks;  and  to  save  interest,  of 
course  the  bonds  must  be  taken  up  soon.  Now,  fellow-citizens, 
every  man  of  intelligence  knows  that  there  are  just  two  ways  to 
do  that  thing.  One  is,  to  print  enough  greenbacks  to  take  up 
the  bonds ;  the  other  is,  to  tax  the  people  sufficiently  to  collect 
greenbacks  enough  to  give  to  the  bondholders  in  lieu  of  their 
bonds.  If  you  adopt  the  second  plan,  you  must  tax  the  people 
enormously.  To  take  up  the  bonds  in  any  reasonably  short 
space  of  time,  you  must  tax  the  people  more  heavily  than  they 
have  ever  yet  been  taxed. 

Put  the  question  to  any  Democrat,  or  to  Mr.  Pendleton,  "  Are 
you  in  favor  of  heavily  increasing  the  taxes  in  order  to  carry 
out  this  scheme?"  If  he  says,  "Yes,"  hold  him  to  it,  and  ask 
your  fellow-citizens  if  they  want  the  taxes  thus  increased.  If 
he  says,  **  No,"  then  there  is  but  one  other  way  to  do  it :  that  is, 
to  print  off  about  fifteen  hundred  million  dollars  of  greenback 
notes,  and  with  them  take  up  the  bonds  and  set  the  notes  afloat. 
Now,  you  may  tell  Mr.  Pendleton  and  his  friends  that  he  is  com- 
pelled to  adopt  one  of  these  plans.  So  far  as  their  feasibility 
and  safety  are  concerned,  it  makes  but  little  difference  which  is 
adopted.  Either  leads  to  measureless  financial  calamity.  Issue 
fifteen  hundred  millions  of  greenbacks,  and  you  will  reduce  the 
value  of  every  paper  dollar  in  the  United  States  to  ten  cents  or 
less,  and  it  may  well  be  doubted  if  a  greenback  dollar  would  be 
worth  even  that  amount.  Issue  such  an  amount  and  you  de- 
range values  everywhere,  raise  prices  everywhere,  and  throw 
the  whole  country  into  the  direst  confusion ;  and  yet  the  states- 
manship of  Mr.  Pendleton  compels  us  to  do  that,  or  to  crush 
the  business  of  the  country  by  a  great  increase  of  Federal 
taxes.  I  shall  be  obliged  to  Mr.  Pendleton,  should  the  words 
I  speak  be  seen  by  him  in  the  Cincinnati  papers,  if  he  will  tell 
the  country  how  it  is  to  escape  one  of  these  calamities. 

I  need  say  no  more  on  that  subject.  Mr.  Pendleton's  theory 
was  repudiated  by  the  Democratic  party  at  the  New  York  Con- 


^ 


484  THE  CANVASS  IN  OHIO. 

vention  last  year.  Instead  of  him,  a  man  was  nominated  who 
only  a  few  days  before,  at  the  Cooper  Institute,  denounced 
Mr.  Pendleton's  theories  as  utterly  unworthy  the  confidence  o[ 
the  people.  Upon  that  denunciation,  which  was  made  with 
great  clearness  and  force,  Mr.  Seymour  was  nominated  in  place 
of  Mr.  Pendleton.  But  the  Democracy  of  Ohio  is  now  at- 
tempting to  foist  upon  the  people  the  very  candidate  whom  the 
Democracy  of  the  whole  Union  then  refused  to  indorse. 

I  ask  your  attention  briefly  to  the  fourth  resolution  of  their 
platform,  not  intending  to  discuss  it,  but  to  point  out  a  pecu- 
liar feature  of  it:  "Resolved,  that  we  denounce  the  present 
high  protective  tariff,  enacted  in  the  interests  of  the  New 
England  manufacturers,  for  its  enormous  imposition  of  duties 
on  salt,  sugar,  tea,  coffee,  and  other  necessaries,  as  oppressive 
especially  upon  the  people  of  the  West,"  etc. 

For  the  present,  we  must  raise  a  large  revenue,  and  the  reve- 
nue we  arc  raising  arises  largely  from  duties  on  imports.  But 
the  Democracy  think  that  it  is  in  the  interest  of  New  England 
to  have  a  protective  duty  on  salt,  sugar,  coffee,  and  tea.  Did 
anybody  ever  before  hear  of  New  England  producing  tea. 
coffee,  sugar,  and  salt?  or  that  in  order  to  grow  tea  and  coffee, 
manufacture  salt,  and  grow  cane  and  make  sugar.  New  England 
must  have  a  high  protective  duty  on  these  articles,  and  that 
thereby  the  West  is  suffering  by  this  oppression  on  the  part  of 
New  England?  Now  if  anybody  will  tell  me  what  intelligent 
financier  drafted  that  resolution,  I  shall  be  glad  to  make  his 
acquaintance,  and  inquire  of  him  in  what  part  of  New  England 
those  things  are  produced.  No  one  of  the  financiers  who  man- 
aged the  tax  bills  and  appropriation  bills  of  the  Ohio  legisla- 
ture, last  winter,  could  have  been  the  author.  Fellow-citizens, 
when  the  necessity  for  a  large  revenue  is  lessened,  it  will  be  time 
enough  to  discuss  the  abolition  of  protective  duties.  There  are 
many  particulars,  no  doubt,  in  which  changes  are  needed  in  our 
customs  laws,  —  some  duties  are  excessive  and  unwise ;  but  the 
meaning  of  this  resolution  is  past  all  comprehension. 

Let  me  call  your  attention  to  the  clause  in  the  fourth  resolu- 
tion with  reference  to  the  hours  of  labor  of  the  workingman, 
and  to  that  other  clause  about  public  lands  to  actual  settlers,  — 
the  homestead  doctrine.  Have  the  Democracy  forgotten  that 
from  1850  to  i860  the  Republican  party  was  fighting  for  the 
homestead  law,  and  was  always  voted  down  by  the  Democratic 


THE  CANVASS  IN  OHIO.  485 

party?  Have  they  forgotten  that  in  i860  the  Republican  party 
passed  a  homestead  bill,  which  was  vetoed  by  James  Buchanan, 
and  which  they  were  not  strong  enough  to  pass  over  his  veto? 
Have  they  forgotten  that  it  was  not  until  we  had  a  Republican 
President  that  such  a  law  was  made,  and  then  in  spite  of  the 
almost  solid  vote  of  the  Democratic  members?  Have  they  for- 
gotten that  we  created  a  homestead  policy,  under  which  homes 
are  springing  up  all  over  the  Territories  of  the  West?  They 
cannot  have  forgotten  these  things ;  but  now,  seven  years  after 
the  thing  is  done,  the  Democratic  party  of  Ohio  puts  a  resolu- 
tion in  their  platform,  declaring  that  they  are  in  favor  of  using 
the  public  lands  for  free  homes  for  the  people.  Well,  I  am  not 
sorry  to  see  the  Democratic  party  for  once  right.  The  nearer 
they  are  right,  the  better  it  is  for  the  country,  and  I  congratulate 
them  that  they  have  announced  their  conversion  to  this  Repub- 
lican doctrine  of  the  homestead  law. 

For  the  laboring  man  they  feel  a  yearning  they  have  never 
felt  before.  The  Democratic  party  is  now  yearning  over  the 
interests  of  the  laboring  man.  How  was  it  when  the  laboring 
men  were  termed  the  **  mudsills  of  society," — when  they  were 
called  the  "  filthy  operatives,"  the  "  greasy  mechanics,"  the 
"hard-fisted  farmers  struggling  to  be  genteel  "?  That  was  the 
language  of  the  Democracy  only  twelve  years  ago.  And  now 
that  the  Republican  party  has  been  taking  the  workingman  by 
the  hand,  and  doing  for  him,  in  spite  of  the  Democratic  party, 
whatever  has  been  done  for  him  by  legislation,  —  now,  in  1869, 
the  Democratic  party  is  in  favor  of  the  rights  of  the  working 
man,  — just  now  when  they  want  his  vote. 

But  there  is  another  doctrine  here  to  which  I  desire  to  call 
your  attention.  I  will  read  the  third  resolution  entire.  It  is 
this :  "  Resolved,  that  we  denounce  the  national  banking  sys- 
tem as  one  of  the  worst  outgrowths  of  the  bonded  debt,  in 
that  it  unnecessarily  increases  the  burden  of  the  people  thirty 
millions  of  dollars  annually,  and  we  demand  its  immediate 
repeal." 

Fellow-citizens,  I  do  not  know  of  any  time  or  place  in  the 
campaign  when  it  is  safer  to  make  a  dry  speech  than  now  and 
here,  when  an  intelligent  audience  like  this  is  comfortably 
seated,  and  can  bear  more  than  when  they  are  wearied  by  a 
long  campaign.  As  chairman  of  the  Committee  on  Banking 
and  Currency  in    the  House  of  Representatives,  it  has  been 


486  THE   CANVASS  IN  OHIO. 

my  duty  to  consider*  the  condition  of  the  national  banks,  and 
compare  them  with  the  system  of  banking  that  preceded 
them;  and  I  ask  your  indulgence  while  I  call  attention  to 
what  it  is  that  the  Democratic  party  propose  to  have  imme- 
diately repealed. 

The  national  banking  system  was  established  by  the  Thirty- 
seventh  Congress,  in  1863,  and  has  been  in  operation  a  little 
more  than  five  years.  On  the  24th  of  May,  1864,  tliere  were  in 
the  United  States  and  Territories  1,617  national  banks  in  oper- 
ation, having  a  capital  of  $420,000,000,  and  a  circulation  of 
$292,202,598,  with  $3,615,387  of  State  bank  notes  still  outstand- 
ing. Wliethcr  these  institutions  should  be  maintained  or  not 
depends  upon  the  soundness,  safety,  uniformity  of  value  of  their 
notes,  and  the  security  which  the  people  have  against  deprecia- 
tion and  failure. 

I.  Security.  The  prompt  redemption  of  the  notes  of  the 
banks  is  secured  as  follows;  — 

1st.  By  $338,000,000  United  States  bonds  (fifteen  per  cent 
more  than  the  whole  circulation)  deposited  by  the  banks  in  the 
vaults  of  the  Treasury  at  Washington. 

2d.  By  a  first  and  paramount  lien  on  all  the  assets  of  the 
banks. 

3d.  By  the  personal  liability  of  all  the  shareholders  to  an 
amount  equal  to  the  capital. 

4th.  By  the  absolute  guaranty  of  the  government  to  redeem 
at  the  national  treasury,  if  the  banks  fail  to  do  so. 

The  efficiency  and  safety  of  these  banks  is  still  further  pro- 
tected by  the  cash  reserve,  which  they  must  keep  constantly  on 
hand,  to  the  amount  of  about  twenty  per  cent  of  their  circula- 
tion. On  the  24th  of  May  last,  that  reserve  actually  amounted 
to  $132,000,000. 

It  will  be  seen  that  the  notes  are  secured  by  nearly  four  times 
their  amount.  Their  security  is  demonstrated  by  the  fact  that, 
in  all  cases  in  which  national  banks  have  failed,  theirnotes  have 
never  fallen  in  value,  but  in  several  instances  have  sold  at  a 
premium. 

II.  Uniformity.  Instead  of  seven  thousand  kinds  of  notes, 
differing  in  form,  security,  and  value,  as  under  the  old  State 
bank  system,  we  now  have  ten  varieties  of  notes,  uniform  in 
all  these  respects.  No  man  stops  to  inquire  whether  a  national 
bank  note  was  issued  in  Maine  or  Arkansas.    Like  our  flag. 


THE  CANVASS  IN  OHIO.  487 

it  bears  the  stamp  of  nationality,  and  is  of  equal  value  in  every 
part  of  the  Union.  With  such  unity  and  simplicity  of  system, 
the  people  have  but  a  short  lesson  to  learn  in  order  to  protect 
themselves  against  counterfeits.  The  uniformity  has  practically 
abolished  rates  of  exchange  between  the  States,  and  most  of 
the  vast  sum  paid  under  the  old  system  to  bankers  and  brokers 
for  the  transmission  of  funds  is  now  saved  to  the  people. 

III.  Convertibility.  These  notes  are  convertible  at  the  will 
of  the  holder  into  United  States  Treasury  notes,  and  whenever 
the  government  returns  to  specie  payments  the  banks  must 
keep  abreast  with  the  government,  and  will  be  powerful  auxilia- 
ries in  that  work.  When  they  redeem  their  notes  in  gold,  the 
principle  of  free  banking  may  be  added  to  the  law,  and  thus 
remove  from  them  all  the  characteristics  of  monopoly,  and 
enable  the  wants  of  the  country  to  regulate  the  volume  of  the 
currency. 

It  ought  to  be  remembered  also  that  the  national  system  is 
greatly  superior  to  the  old  in  this,  that  all  the  affairs  of  the 
banks  are  made  public  in  frequent  reports,  and  by  a  system  of 
rigid  examinations. 

There  are  many  points  in  which  the  system  can  and  should 
be  amended,  and  it  should  be  subjected  to  the  severest  scru- 
tiny; but  I  do  not  hesitate  to  claim  for  it  a  great  superiority 
over  any  and  all  systems  hitherto  adopted  in  the  country. 

The  only  specification  made  against  the  system  by  the  Dem- 
ocratic Convention  is  that  it  costs  the  people  $30,000,000  an- 
nually. What  is  the  pretext  for  this  statement?  How  is  this 
estimate  made?  From  the  fact  of  the  notes  being  based  on 
$338,000,000  of  interest-bearing  bonds?  These  bonds  would 
be  in  existence  and  draw  interest  from  the  Treasury  if  the  banks 
did  not  exist.  Is  it  that  the  banks  have  the  use  of  $292,000,000 
circulation,  without  interest?  Would  the  fact  be  otherwise  if 
the  State  banks  were  restored  ?  On  any  theory,  how  does  the 
Convention  figure  up  its  thirty  millions? 

Whatever  may  be  the  advantage  which  the  banks  reap  from 
their  privileges,  our  Democratic  friends  would  have  us  believe 
there  is  no  advantage  on  the  side  of  the  people.  Let  us  see. 
Besides  furnishing  the  nation  with  a  sound,  safe,  and  uniform 
currency,  they  do  no  small  share  of  the  work  of  bearing  the 
burdens  of  the  nation.  In  the  year  ending  January  i,  1868, 
these  banks  paid  taxes  as  follows :  — 


488  THE   CANVASS  IN  OHIO. 

United  States  tax,  a, 7S  percent £9,515,000 

State  tax  a.oS  per  cent 8,813,000 

Total     ,     .     ,   4.83  percent 18,338,000 

The  capital  of  the  national  banks  of  Ohio  was  $22,500,000. 
and  in  that  year  they  paid  into  the  treasury  of  the  United 
States  $514,000,  and  into  the  treasury  of  Ohio  $521,000.  What 
other  interest  in  Ohio  paid  so  large  a  per  cent  of  tax?  The 
stock  of  these  banks  is  taxable  under  State  laws.  AboHsb 
them,  as  the  Democracy  recommend,  and  all  their  bonds  pass 
into  a  form  which  the  State  cannot  tax. 

IV,  The  banks  are  fiscal  agents  of  tlie  government  They 
have  served  the  government  as  fiscal  agents  in  disposing  of 
government  stocks,  and  receiving  and  transmitting  public  funds 
as  they  were  collected  by  the  officers  of  the  internal  reve- 
nue, thus  saving  a  great  expense.  In  his  report  for  1866  the 
Secretary  of  the  Treasury  says  that  up  to  that  time  these  banks 
had  "  collected  for  and  paid  into  the  Treasury  amounts  aggre- 
gating, in  receipts  and  payments,  $3,500,000,000,  for  which,  had 
they  been  allowed  only  one  tenth  of  one  per  cent  commissions, 
they  would  have  received  about  $3,500,000.  These  services 
were  rendered  to  the  government  free  of  charge." 

I  make  no  other  defence  of  the  system  than  the  statement  of, 
the  facts.  If  the  banks  need  improvement,  amend  the  law ;  if 
they  charge  usurious  interest  and  oppress  the  people,  punish 
them;  but  do  not  plunge  us  back  into  the  old  chaos  from  which 
this  law  has  rescued  us. 

But  some  one  may  say,  "  We  don't  believe  in  banks  at  all ; 
let  us  not  have  any  of  them."  There  is  no  civilized  country  on 
the  globe  that  has  not  banks  and  paper  money.  In  England,  a 
hard-money  country  if  there  be  one  in  the  world,  no  man  who 
travels  carries  much  gold  in  his  pocket  He  carries  Bank 
of  England  notes.  In  France,  with  her  $200,000,000  of  idle 
gold  locked  up  in  the  vaults  of  a  single  bank,  where  it  has  lain 
for  years,  bank-notes  are  the  currency  of  the  country,  except  for 
change.  In  all  countries  the  necessity  of  a  paper  currency  is 
acknowledged.  We  never  have  been  without  one.  Every  State 
has  had  its  paper  money,  whether  Whigs  or  Democrats  were  in 
power.  The  question,  then,  is  not  between  the  present  system 
of  banks  and  no  banks,  but  between  this  system  and  the  old 
system ;  and  when  the  Democracy  propose  to  blot  this  out  of 


THE  CANVASS  IN  OHIO.  489 

existence,  I  ask  them  to  tell  us  what  they  would  put  in  its  place. 
Some  will  perhaps  say,  Issue  greenbacks,  and  supply  a  currency, 
directly  from  the  Treasury.  Every  government  has  at  some 
time  or  other  considered  the  question  of  issuing  paper  notes  to 
supply  the  people  with  currency,  but  every  country  holds  the 
proposition  unwise  and  dangerous.  No  human  legislation  is 
livise  enough  to  adapt  such  a  currency  to  the  wants  of  trade,  nor 
virtuous  enough  to  withstand  the  temptation  to  lighten  taxes  by 
increasing  the  volume  of  paper  money.  It  does  not  become 
^e  Democracy  to  advocate  such  a  policy. 

That  party  boasts,  and  justly  so,  of  having  established  the 
Subtreasury  system  in  1846,  which  provided  that  the  govern- 
ment money  should  not  be  kept  in  the  banks,  but  in  the  treas- 
uries of  the  government,  and  that  State  bank  paper  should 
no  longer  be  received  in  payment  of  public  dues.  What  does 
this  proposition  of  the  Democratic  party  to  abolish  the  national 
banks  mean?  It  can  mean  but  one  thing,  —  the  restoration  of 
the  old  system  of  State  banks  which  prevailed  in  1863.  Now 
this  is  a  question  that  comes  home  to  the  business  interests  of 
every  citizen,  and  at  the  risk  of  being  tedious  I  shall  call  your 
attention  to  the  system  from  which  we  have  been  rescued.  Let 
me  briefly  run  over  the  history  of  banks  in  the  United  States. 

No  man  fails  to  remember  the  terrible  condition  into  which 
our  fathers  were  plunged  by  the  Continental  currency.  They 
did  not  hesitate  to  declare  that  all  the  evils  of  the  war,  except 
the  loss  of  life,  put  together,  were  not  equal  to  those  that  sprung 
from  the  Continental  money.  Issued  in  vast  quantities,  it  de- 
preciated step  by  step  until  one  thousand  dollars  would  but 
buy  a  dollar  in  gold,  —  until  a  wagon-load  would  scarcely  pay  a 
man's  board  for  a  month.  To  free  the  country  from  these  evils 
the  Continental  Congress,  in  1781,  resumed  specie  payments, 
and,  under  the  lead  of  Robert  Morris,  established  the  Bank 
of  North  America,  more  than  half  of  the  stock  of  which  was 
taken  by  the  government.  So  slight  was  the  authority  of  the 
nation  then  that  for  greater  safety  a  charter  was  procured  from 
the  State  of  Pennsylvania  as  well  as  one  from  the  Congress. 
The  bank  was  well  managed,  and  performed  valuable  services 
to  the  country  during  the  closing  years  of  the  war,  and  until 
the  Constitution  was  adopted.  After  it  ceased  to  be  a  United 
States  bank,  it  continued  its  organization  as  a  State  bank,  and  is 
now  in  vigorous  life  under  the  National  Banking  Law. 


490  THE  CANVASS  IN  OHIO. 

In  1 79 1,  under  the  lead  of  Alexander  Hamilton,  Congress 
established  the  first  United  States  Bank.  Washington  signed  the 
bill,  in  opposition  to  the  opinions  of  Jefferson  and  Randolph. 
The  law  authorized  a  central  bank  to  be  established  in  Philadel- 
phia, with  branches  in  other  places.  Its  capital  was  ten  millions 
of  dollars,  one  quarter  coin,  and  three  quarters  United  States 
stocks.  One  fifth  of  the  stock  was  to  be  held  by  the  govern- 
ment, and  five  of  the  twenty-five  directors  were  appointed  by 
the  government.  Whatever  may  have  been  the  opinions  of  our 
fathers  in  regard  to  the  wisdom  of  the  measure,  it  has  become 
a  part  of  our  history  that  this  bank  gave  the  country  a  paper 
currency  always  convertible  into  coin,  and  in  soundness  and 
uniformity  far  superior  to  any  it  had  before  possessed.  By 
means  of  it,  Hamilton  was  enabled  to  carry  out  his  masterly 
scheme  of  funding  and  reducing  the  public  debt.  The  charter 
of  this  bank  expired  in  1811,  and  the  bill  for  its  renewal  was 
defeated  by  the  casting  vote  of  the  President  of  the  Senate. 

Then  followed  five  years  of  chaos.  No  man  can  read  the 
history  of  the  war  of  18 12-15  without  perceiving  the  fact  that 
not  only  the  currency  of  the  country,  but  the  finances  of  the 
government,  were  to  a  great  extent  abandoned  to  the  mercy 
of  banking  corporations,  which  everywhere  sprang  up,  and 
flooded  the  country  witli  irredeemable  and  worthless  paper. 

In  1 816,  under  the  lead  of  Madison  and  Dallas,  the  second 
Bank  of  the  United  States  was  established,  with  a  larger  capital 
than  the  first,  but  based  on  the  same  general  principles. 
Though  this  bank  did  not  drive  the  State  banks  out  of  the  field, 
yet  it  will  not  be  denied  that  during  its  twenty  years  of  exist- 
ence the  people  never  lost  a  dollar  by  the  depreciation  of  its 
notes,  and  that  it  powerfully  aided  the  government  in  reducing 
the  public  debt.  As  the  debt  was  finally  paid  off  in  1836,  there 
was  no  longer  a  pressing  necessity  for  paper  money,  so  far  as 
the  government  was  concerned,  and  the  Democratic  party  re- 
fused to  recharter  the  bank.  There  were  features  in  its  plan 
which  could  not  be  defended ;  but  it  was  perfection  itself 
compared  with  the  system  which  preceded  and  followed. 

From  1836  to  1863  the  government  practically  abandoned  all 
efforts  to  regulate  the  paper  money  of  the  country.  Though 
the  Constitution  plainly  forbids  any  State  to  "  emit  bills  of 
credit,  or  make  anything  but  gold  and  silver  coin  a  tender  in 
payment  of  debts,"  yet  the  Democratic  party,  by  its  refusal  to 


THE   CANVASS  IN  OHIO.  491 

furnish  a  paper  currency  to  the  country,  permitted  the  system 
of  State  currency  to  develop  and  engender  evils,  the  like  of 
which  can  scarcely  be  found  in  the  records  of  civilized  nations. 
From  these  evils  we  were  rescued  by  the  National  Banking  Act 
of  1863;  and  now  the  Democracy  of  Ohio  propose  to  plunge 
us  back  into  them  by  the  absolute  repeal  of  that  act. 

Between  these  two  systems,  the  State  and  the  National,  the 
people  are  called  upon  to  choose.  The  Democratic  party  elect 
the  former,  the  Republican  party  the  latter.  Let  us  compare 
their  merits  by  the  fruits  they  have  borne ;  and  in  making  this 
comparison,  let  us  remember  that  the  qualities  of  a  good  paper 
currency  are,  — 

1st.   That  it  shall  be  based  on  ample  security. 

2d.   That  it  shall  be  of  uniform  value  throughout  the  country. 

3d.  That  it  shall  be  convertible  into  coin  at  the  will  of  the 
holder. 

Of  course,  no  system  of  paper  money  can  possess  the  last- 
named  quality  during  a  general  suspension  of  specie  payments. 
We  have  seen  what  the  National  system  is,  and  I  will  ex- 
hibit the  State  currency  in  its  best  condition,  with  all  the 
improvements  and  safeguards  which  half  a  century  of  experi- 
ence had  thrown  around  it. 

On  the  1st  of  January,  1862,  there  were  in  the  United  States 
1,496  banks  that  issued  circulating  notes.  Their  aggregate  cap- 
ital was  $420,000,000,  and  their  circulation  was  $184,000,000. 
They  were  established  under  the  laws  of  twenty-nine  different 
States,  granted  different  privileges,  subjected  to  different  re- 
strictions, and  their  circulation  was  based  on  a  great  variety 
of  securities,  of  different  qualities  and  quantities.  In  some 
States  the  bill-holder  was  secured  by  the  daily  redemption 
of  notes  in  the  principal  city;  in  others,  by  the  pledge  of 
State  stocks;  and  in  others,  by  the  coin  reserves.  But  as 
State  stocks  differed  greatly  in  value,  all  the  way  from  the  re- 
pudiated bonds  of  Mississippi  to  the  premium  bonds  of  Mas- 
sachusetts, this  could  give  no  uniformity  of  security,  and  the 
amount  of  coin  reserves  required  in  the  different  States  was 
so  various  as  to  make  that  kind  of  security  almost  equally 
irregular.  It  required  the  study  of  a  lifetime  to  understand  the 
various  systems.  There  were  State  banks  with  branches,  inde- 
pendent banks,  free  banks,  individual  banks,  banks  organized 
under  a  general  law,  and  banks  with   special  charters.     They 


492  THE  CANVASS  IN  Off/0. 

represented  all  varieties  of  condition  and  credit  They  were 
solvent,  suspended,  closed,  wound  up,  broken,  according  as  the 
fluctuations  of  trade,  and  the  wisdom  or  folly,  the  honesty  or 
rascality,  of  tlicir  managers  dictated.  Their  notes  had  no  uni- 
formity of  valut,  and  nearly  all  of  them  —  especially  in  the  West 
and  South  —  lost  heavily  in  current  value  when  carried  beyond 
the  limits  of  the  State,  I  remember  that  in  Massachusetts,  in 
1855,  1  could  get  but  ninety-four  cents  on  the  dollar  for  a  note 
of  the  State  Bank  of  Ohio,  which  at  home  was  convertible  into 
gold. 

Examinea  Baok-Note  Reporter  for  1862-63,  and  consider  the 
mass  of  trash  there  set  down  as  the  paper  currency  of  the 
country.  In  November,  1862,  the  circulation  in  the  loyal  States 
was  $167,000,000.  The  State  securities  for  this  amount  were 
only  $40,000,000,  leaving  over  $120,000,000  inadequately  pro- 
vided for.  In  only  nine  of  the  States  did  the  law  require  the 
circulation  to  be  secured  by  State  bonds.  In  the  State  of  Illi- 
nois, from  185 1  to  1863,  the  failures  of  banks  numbered  eighty- 
nine,  and  their  paper  ranged  from  thirty-eight  per  cent  to 
one  liundrfd  per  cent  below  par.  Of  the  $12,000,000  of  bank 
circulation  in  Illinois,  the  people  lost  two  or  three  millions 
directly,  besides  the  indirect  loss  of  as  many  millions  more  by 
derangement  of  business  and  ruin  to  private  interests.  Of  ten 
suspended  banks  in  Minnesota,  the  notes  were  reduced  to  an 
average  of  less  than  thirty  cents  on  the  dollar.  Of  thirty-six 
broken  banks  of  Wisconsin,  only  six  redeemed  their  notes  at  so 
high  a  rate  as  eighty  cents  on  the  dollar.  Even  as  early  as  1 860, 
a  time  of  great  commercial  prosperity,  the  official  report  of  only 
eighteen  States  showed  147  banks  broken,  234  closed,  and  131 
worthless.  Such  was  the  condition  of  512  banks,  the  whole 
number  in  those  States  being  1,231. 

But  there  was  one  class  of  paper  issues  which  must  not 
be  overlooked, —  the  vast  circulation  issued  by  counterfeiters. 
There  were  in  circulation,  in  1862,  about  seven  thousand  differ- 
ent kinds  of  notes,  issued  by  the  fifteen  hundred  banks.  From 
statistics  carefully  compiled,  it  was  ascertained  that  there  were 
in  existence  that  year  over  three  thousand  varieties  of  altered 
notes,  seventeen  hundred  varieties  of  spurious  notes,  and  over 
eight  hundred  varieties  of  imitations.  Thus,  it  appears,  there 
were  more  than  five  thousand  five  hundred  varieties  of  fraud- 
ulent notes  in  circulation ;  and  the  dead  weight  of  all  the  losses 


THE   CANVASS  IN  OHIO.  493 

occasioned  by  them  fell  at  last  upon  the  great  mass  of  the 
people  who  were  not  expert  in  such  matters.  There  were,  in 
1862,  but  two  hundred  and  fifty-three  banks  whose  notes  had  not 
been  altered  or  imitated. 

Let  it  be  remembered  that  for  nearly  half  a  century  a  large 
part  of  the  revenues  of  the  general  government  were  received 
in  the  notes  of  these  State  banks,  in  all  stages  of  discredit  and 
depreciation,  and  with  all  the  attendant  risks  of  counterfeited 
and  altered  bills.  It  is  a  fact  worthy  of  remembrance  that  in 
1 8 19  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  was  compelled  to  borrow 
half  a  million  of  dollars  to  meet  a  foreign  debt  of  that  amount; 
and  at  that  moment  there  was  $22,ooo,cxx)  of  surplus  funds  in 
the  national  Treasury,  out  of  which  he  could  not  cull  enough 
current  funds  to  meet  the  demand. 

With  many  independent  and  rival  organizations  tinkering  at 
the  currency,  it  was  impossible  that  any  salutary  control  could 
be  exercised  over  either  its  quality  or  quantity.  Here  and 
there  were  found  good  banks  and  wise  management ;  but,  taken 
as  a  whole,  the  system  was  totally  unmanageable.  Violent  con- 
tractions and  expansions  of  the  currency  were  frequent  and 
inevitable.  In  18 18,  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  declared 
that  in  three  years  the  currency  had  been  reduced  from 
$110,000,000  to  $45,000,000,  —  a  reduction  of  over  fifty-nine 
per  cent.  In  1834,  there  was  $95,000,000  in  circulation.  In 
1837,  ^he  volume  had  risen  to  $149,000,000,  and  before 
the  end  of  the  year  it  fell  to  $116,000,000.  In  1841  there  was 
$107,000,000;  but  at  the  end  of  1842,  but  $59,000,000.  In 
1857  it  had  reached  $215,000,000,  its  highest  point  of  inflation 
before  the  war;  and  on  the  ist  of  January,  1858,  it  had  sunk 
to  $135,000,000,  —  a  decrease  of  nearly  forty  per  cent  in  twelve 
months.  Who  can  be  surprised,  in  view  of  these  facts,  that  the 
periods  here  named  were  marked  by  those  terrible  financial 
disasters  which  involved  in  common  ruin  the  prudent  and 
the  reckless,  and  made  industry  and  wealth  the  sport  of 
chance?  In  every  such  crisis  the  laboring  classes  were  the 
greatest  sufferers.  The  capitalists  were  generally  able  to  fore- 
see the  danger  and  save  themselves  from  the  wreck. 

What  arithmetic  will  enable  us  to  measure  the  losses  which 
this  system  has  entailed  on  the  American  people?  As  a  partial 
illustration,  I  call  attention  to  the  report  of  the  Bank  Commis- 
sioner of  Ohio,  made  in  obedience  to  a  resolution  of  the  Senate, 


n 


494  THE   CANVASS  IN  OHIO- 

showing  the  loss  sustained  by  the  people  of  the  State  during 
eleven  years,  ending  in  iS43,from  the  failure  of  Ohio  banks. 
From  the  depreciated  bills  of  nineteen  broken  banks  the  loss 
was  $1,405,895,  and  from  the  depreciation  of  their  stocks, 
$683,264.  During  the  same  period  the  cost  of  exchange,  in 
consequence  of  the  unequal  value  of  our  currency,  ranged  from 
one  to  twelve  per  cent,  and  the  total  amount  paid  for  exchange 
by  the  people  of  Ohio  was  $10,536,683.  The  Commissioner 
concluded  his  report  in  these  words  :  "  It  wilt  be  here  recol- 
lected that  wc  have  not  taken  into  the  estimate  the  losses  sus- 
tained by  foreign  banks,  and  the  vast  amount  of  shinpjasters 
which  flooded  the  State  during  the  suspension  of  specie  pay- 
ments. If  these  sums  could  be  ascertained,  wc  should  not  hesi- 
tate in  saying  that  the  losses  sustained  by  the  citizens  of  Ohio 
during  the  last  eleven  years  would  more  than  double  the  capital 
stock  of  the  twenty-three  banks  doing  business  in  1S42,  which 
was  $7,034,083.45,  and  go  far  toward  the  extinguishment  of  the 
State  debt." 

In  obedience  to  some  resolutions  of  the  Senate,  adopted  the 
7th  of  January,  1841,  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  of  the  United 
States  made  a  report,  showing  that  from  1789  to  1841  three 
hundred  and  ninety-five  banks  had  become  insolvent,  and  that 
the  aggregate  loss  sustained  by  the  Government  and  people  of 
the  United  States  was  $365,451,497.  The  report  also  showed 
that  during  the  ten  years  preceding  1841  the  total  amount  paid 
by  the  people  of  the  United  States  to  the  banks,  for  the  use  of 
them,  amounted  to  the  enormous  sum  of  $282,000,000.' 

Startling  as  these  figures  are,  they  fall  far  short  of  exhibiting 
the  magnitude  of  the  losses  occasioned  by  this  system.  The 
financial  Journals  of  that  period  agreed  in  the  following  estimate 
of  the  losses  occasioned  by  the  commercial  revulsion  of  1 837 :  — 

On  bank  circulation  and  deposits #54,000,000 

Bank  capital  failed  and  depreciated 248,000,000 

State  stock  depreciated  .  . 
Company  stock  depreciated 
Real  estate  depredated 


Total ?782,ooo,ooo 

•  The  phrase  "  for  the  use  of  them  "  seems  to  have  been  suggested  to  Mr.  Gar- 
field by  the  third  of  the  resolutiors  of  January  7,  vLi. ;  "  What  have  the  people 
and  government  of  the  United  Slates  paid,  directly  and  indirectly,  to  the  aggre- 
gate banks  of  the  United  States  for  the  use  of  those  imtitutioas  annually  for  the 
last  tea  years  ?  " 


THE  CANVASS  IN  OHIO.  495 

To  our  Democratic  friends  who  desire  to  return  to  the  State 
bank  system,  I  commend  the  reading  of  the  message  of  Gov- 
ernor T.  W.  Bartley  to  the  Legislature  of  Ohio  of  December  3, 
1844,  which  states  and  powerfully  exhibits  the  significance  of 
most  of  the  facts  to  which  I  have  just  referred. 

In  striking  contrast  with  this  system,  to  which  the  Democrats 
would  have  us  return,  the  Republican  party  has  created  and 
proposes  to  perfect  and  perpetuate  the  national  banking  sys- 
tem, of  which  I  have  already  spoken. 

It  will  be  noticed  in  the  review  I  have  made,  that  the  Democ- 
racy, by  refusing  to  give  the  people  a  safe,  uniform  national 
currency,  have  compelled  them  to  resort  to  the  wretched  State 
bank  system,  and  though  they  have  at  times  declaimed  against 
all  banks,  yet  they  have  always,  when  in  power,  compelled  the 
people  to  suffer  from  the  worst  of  all  the  systems.  I  commend 
this  subject  to  the  good  people  of  Ohio,  with  full  confidence  that 
they  will  not  permit  the  policy  of  the  Democracy  to  prevail. 

The  charge  is  made  against  us  Republicans,  and  it  met  us 
everywhere  last  year,  that  we  are  increasing  the  public  debt ; 
that  the  burdens  of  the  people  are  great;  that  the  Democrats 
wished  to  put  us  out  of  power  and  liberate  the  people  from  the 
great  burdens  under  which  they  are  laboring.  But  even  last 
year  we  were  doing  something  toward  diminishing  the  public 
debt,  though  the  chief  obstacle  was  the  Democratic  admin- 
istration then  in  power  at  Washington.  Our  chief  drawback 
was  Andrew  Johnson  and  his  office-holders.  W6  had  in  the 
Indian  Department,  in  the  Internal  Revenue  Department,  and  in 
various  disbursing  departments  of  the  government,  an  array  of 
corrupt  officials,  the  like  of  which  never  before  disgraced  the 
annals  of  the  Republic.  In  our  whole  history  it  is  scarcely 
possible  to  find  a  record  so  dark  as  that  of  the  Whiskey  Ring. 
During  the  last  two  years  the  nation  has  been  disgraced,  the 
people  demoralized,  the  treasury  robbed,  and  the  people  out- 
raged by  men  kept  in  office  for  partisan  purposes.  Take  one 
fact  as  an  illustration.  Six  months  before  Andrew  Johnson 
went  out  of  office,  a  man  in  Cincinnati  is  declared  to  have 
offered  $5,000  in  order  to  get  a  whiskey  inspectorship  in  Cin- 
cinnati for  the  remainder  of  Johnson's  term,  when  the  salary  of 
that  office  was  but  $3,000  a  year.  And  it  made  no  difference 
if  charges  were  brought  against  this  Ring,  and  they  were  con- 
victed; the  last  act  of  Andrew  Johnson  as  he  went  out  of  office 


^ 


496  THE   CANVASS  IN  OHIO. 

was  to  pardon  a  set  of  tliievea  and  counterfeiters  convicted 
under  the  laws  of  the  United  States,  Any  change  under  such 
circumstances  must  have  been  a  blessing. 

A  man  of  your  own  city,^  whose  honesty  and  ability  are  un- 
doubted, was  placed  at  the  head  of  the  revenue  department, 
and  another  man  from  our  State,  of  whom  we  arc  all  proud,^ 
was  placed  at  the  head  of  the  Interior  Department,  where  he 
has  control  of  Indian  affairs.  Hundreds  of  thieves  have  been 
turned  out,  the  collection  of  the  revenue  has  been  honestly 
made,  and  the  public  debt  reduced.  The  Democratic  statisti- 
cian, Dclmar,  who  was  employed  last  year  by  "  three  wise  men 
of  Gotham  "  to  make  an  estimate  of  the  national  revenues  and 
expenditures,  stated  that  for  the  last  fiscal  year  the  revenue 
would  exhibit  a  deficit  of  $1 54,0x1,000.  He  estimated  that  the 
expenditures  would  exceed  $475,000,000,  and  the  receipts  be 
less  than  $333,000,000.  Instead  of  this,  the  expenditures  were 
$320,000,000,  and  the  receipts  over  $370,000,000,  showing  an 
actual  surplus  of  $50,000,000.  of  which  $35,000,000  accrued 
during  the  last  quarter,  under  the  new  administration.  During 
one  of  the  years  of  Andrew  Johnson,  with  a  ta.t  of  two  dollars 
on  the  gallon  of  whiskey,  only  $13,000,000  was  collected;  now 
we  are  receiving  revenue  at  the  rate  of  $50,000,000  per  annum 
from  whiskey,  and  the  tax  is  but  fifty  cents  on'the  gallon,  with 
special  taxes,  which  make  the  total  tax  only  about  sixty-5ve 
cents  a  gallon. 

We  can  carry  the  comparison  through  all  branches  of  the 
revenue  department,  and  show  marked  improvements  since 
the  new  administration  came  in.  During  the  six  months  ending 
the  1st  of  August,  our  public  debt  was  reduced  more  than 
$43,500,000.  For  the  coming  year,  if  there  are  no  great  draw- 
backs, we  may  expect  a  surplus  of  $ioo,ooo,ooo,  without  any 
increase  of  taxes.  This  will  result  from  the  honest  collection 
of  the  revenues,  and  the  reduction  of  expenses  in  the  several 
departments  of  the  government  The  savings  in  expenditures 
for  the  coming  year,  as  compared  with  those  of  last  year,  are 
estimated  at  $2,000,000  for  the  army,  $1,000,000  for  the  Post- 
Oftice  Department,  and  $20,000,000  for  civil  and  miscellaneous 
expenses.  In  view  of  these  facts,  what  becomes  of  the  charges 
and  accusations  of  the  Democracy?  Will  they  continue  to 
prophesy  evil,  while  the  administration  is  maintaining  and  en- 
'  Hon.  Columbiu  Delano.  *  Hon.  J.  D.  Cox. 


THE  CANVASS  IN  OHIO.  497 

hancing  the  public  credit,  and  moving  steadily  forward  toward 
the  payment  of  the  public  debt? 

In  another  resolution  of  their  State  platform  the  Democrats 
charge  that  we  are  oppressing  some  of  the  people  in  the  South, 
and  that  we  propose  to  allow  negroes  to  vote.  When  the  Re- 
publican party  determined  to  preserve  both  liberty  and  union, 
they  resolved  to  realize  the  whole  meaning  of  that  first  great 
truth  of  the  Declaration  of  Independence,  **  That  all  men  are 
created  equal."  We  have  no  right  to  liberty  ourselves  unless 
we  share  it  with  all  men.  And  I  rejoice  that,  in  looking  over 
the  history  of  the  war,  we  can  recognize  the  hand  of  Almighty 
God  tracing  out  for  us  in  blazing  lines  which  could  not  be  mis- 
understood the  declaration  that  justice  to  all  was  the  price  we 
must  pay  for  the  Union.  We  fought  two  years  with  great  dis- 
aster and  small  success ;  but  when  the  Proclamation  of  Eman- 
cipation was  made,  that  very  day  the  tide  of  battle  turned.  I 
see  before  me  many  old  soldiers  of  the  Army  of  the  Cumber- 
land. They  will  remember  with  what  darkness  the  sun  went 
down  on  the  31st  of  December,  1862,  on  the  field  of  Stone 
River.  They  will  remember  how  our  army  had  been  driven 
back,  how  our  thousands  lay  slain  on  the  field ;  and  they  will 
remember  how,  when  the  morning  of  the  ist  of  January,  1863, 
came,  and  the  Emancipation  Proclamation  flashed  over  the 
wires,  our  eagles  were  plumed  anew,  and  the  defeat  at  Stone 
River  was  turned  into  a  glorious  victory.  They  remember  that  a 
year  before  that  date  our  cavalrymen  had  watered  their  horses 
in  the  Tennessee,  but  had  been  driven  back  until  they  saw  the 
spires  of  Cincionati.  They  also  remember  that,  under  the  Procla- 
mation of  Emancipation,  the  march  of  the  armies  of  the  Cum- 
berland and  the  Tennessee  was  always  forward,  — forwardy 
stepping  in  blood,  it  is  true,  but  always  carrying  their  eagles 
to  victory,  until  at  last,  on  the  shores  of  the  Atlantic,  joining 
the  victorious  army  of  the  East,  they  struck  the  final  blow,  and 
the  Rebellion  perished. 

Now,  fellow-citizens,  dare  we,  with  so  solemn,  so  impressive 
a  lesson  as  this,  —  dare  we  say  that  those  men  who  helped  us 
save  the  republic  shall  have  no  share  in  its  liberty,  its  protection, 
and  its  citizenship  ?  As  worthy  men  we  dare  not.  The  last  act 
in  the  great  drama  will  be  performed  in  a  few  months,  when  the 
Fifteenth  Amendment  is  adopted,  and  fixed  forever  in  the  fir- 
mament of  the  Constitution.     If,   under   the  influence  of  the 

VOL.  I.  32 


498 


TffE  CANVASS  IN  OfflO. 


Democratic  party,  the  State  of  Ohio  shall  not  be  honored  by  ■ 
aiding  in  that  great  and  good  work,  it  will  still  be  done,  even  ■ 
without  the  help  of  Ohio.  That  amendment  will  be  set  among  1 
the  great  lights  in  the  firmament  of  our  Const'tution ;  and  then, 
fellow-citizens,  looking  up  into  our  political  heavens,  we  may  i 
say  in  truth,  "  There  is  and  there  shall  be  no  night  there." 

If  I  read  the  signs  aright,  this  campaign  is  the  end,  the  ab-  3 
solute  end,  of  the  old  regime  of  Democracy.  It  tried  to  take  1 
a  new  departure,  but  failed.  Its  only  hope  of  life  is  to  wash  it»  fl 
hands,  to  wash  its  heart,  and  be  cleansed  throughout,  so  tliat^ 
its  flesh  shall  become  as  the  flesh  of  a  Httlc  child,  and  not  the  ■ 
leprous  thing  we  have  seen  it  for  the  last  nine  years.  Then,  A 
fellow-citizens,  when  the  party  is  thus  purified,  the  citizens  oil 
Ohio  may  invite  some  son  of  that  regenerated  Democracy  ton 
the  Governorship  of  the  State ;  then  the  people  might  feel  that  ] 
in  their  hands  the  interests  of  the  Sute  and  the  republic  would  ] 
be  safe ;   but  until  then  they  will  not  be  trusted. 


Nctte. — The  views  concerning- Majur  General  Roscci&os  expressed 
above  were  those  that  Mr.  Garfield  held  from  the  time  that  he  served 
under  that  officer  in  1863  to  the  Presidential  campaign  of  1880.  An 
interesting  series  of  Garfield- Rosecrans  documents  will  be  found  in  the 
Appendix  to  this  volume. 


CIVIL  SERVICE   REFORM. 

REMARKS   MADE  IN  THE  HOUSE  OF  REPRESENTATIVES   ON 

VARIOUS  OCCASIONS. 


On  the  14th  of  March,  1870,  the  House  of  Representatives  being 
in  Committee  of  the  Whole  on  the  state  of  the  Union,  and  having 
under  consideration  a  bill  making  appropriations  to  supply  deficiencies 
in  the  appropriations  for  the  service  of  the  government  for  the  fiscal 
year  ending  June  30,  1870,  and  for  other  purposes,  Mr.  Garfield  made  a 
brief  speech  which  he  entitled  "  Public  Expenditures  and  the  Civil  Ser- 
vice." In  the  first  part  of  the  speech  he  replied  to  attacks  made  in 
the  debate  upon  the  Republican  party  on  the  score  of  prodigal  and 
corrupt  expenditure,  and  then  addressed  himself  to  the  improvement  of 
the  civil  service  as  a  measure  of  administrative  reform. 

MR.  CHAIRMAN,  — I  desire  to  call  the  attention  of  the 
chairman  of  the  Committee  on  Appropriations  ^  >Co  a 
measure  of  economy  and  reform  to  which  he  may,  with  great 
propriety,  direct  his  efforts,  and  in  which,  I  have  no  doubt,  he 
will  have  the  hearty  co-operation  of  the  President  and  the  execu- 
tive departments,  and  the  gratitude  of  all  good  men.  I  refer  to 
our  civil  service.  I  shall  not  now  enter  that  broad  field  which 
my  distinguished  friend  from  Rhode  Island^  has  occupied,  but 
I  call  attention  to  the  fact  that  our  whole  civil  service  is  costing 
us  far  too  much.  Secretary  McCulloch  once  made  this  remark- 
able statement:  "  If  you  will  give  me  one  half  what  it  costs  to 
run  the  Treasury  Department  of  the  United  States,  I  will  do  all 
its  work  better  than  it  is  now  done,  and  make  a  great  fortune 
out  of  what  I  can  save."  The  same  might  be  said  of  all  our  ex- 
ecutive departments.  And  if  there  is  one  thing  to  which  my 
distinguished  friend  from  Massachusetts  can  devote  his  atten- 
tion with  most  marked  results,  with  the  applause  of  this  House, 
and  of  the  whole  country,  it  is  the  reorganization  of  these  de- 
partments. 

'  Mr.  Dawes.  *  Mr.  Jenckes. 


SOO  CJVIL    SERVICE   REFORM. 

In  the  annual  report  of  the  Secretary  of  the  Interior  there 
is  a  passage  which  should  be  commended  to  everj'  member  of 
this  House.  That  officer  says  that  he  can  do  the  work  of  his 
department  with  two  thirds  of  the  force  which  he  now  has 
under  his  control,  if  you  will  only  give  him  a  reasonable  and 
wise  organization.     I  quote  his  words:  — 

"  The  first  measure  of  reform  is  to  raise  die  standard  of  qualification, 
make  merit,  a.s  tested  by  the  duty  performed,  the  sole  ground  of  promo- 
tion, and  secure  to  the  faJthfid  incumbent  tlie  same  permanence  of  em- 
ployment that  is  given  to  officers  of  Uic  army  and  navy.  Under  the  present 
system,  the  general  conviction  among  the  tlerks  and  employees  is  that 
the  retention  of  their  places  depends  much  more  upon  the  political  influ- 
ence they  can  command  than  upon  energy  or  zeal  in  the  performance 
of  duty.  After  a  careful  examination  of  the  subject,  I  am  fully  per- 
suaded that  the  measure  1  have  suggested  would  have  enabled  this 
department  to  do  the  work  of  the  past  fiscal  year  with  a  corps  of  clerits  ' 
one  third  less  in  number  tlian  were  found  necessary,"  ' 

I  believe  I  am  right  in  saying  that  one  half  of  all  that  great 
army  of  clerks  employed  in  the  civil  departments  are  engaged 
in  the  mere  business  of  copying;  not  in  the  use  of  judgment 
or  expert  knowledge  of  business,  nor  the  application  of  the 
law  to  the  adjustment  of  accounts,  but  to  the  mere  manual 
labor  of  copying,  filing,  or  counting.  Now,  to  do  just  such 
work  as  this,  men  can  be  hired  all  over  the  country  for  six  or 
eight  hundred  dollars  a  year.  Every  business  man  knows  that 
he  can  get  a  good,  efficient  copying  clerk  at  that  rate.  But, 
without  any  rational  organization,  we  are  paying  that  whole 
class  of  employees  at  least  double  what  they  can  get  elsewhere. 
The  whole  business  of  civil  appointments  depends  upon  that 
vague,  uncertain,  intangible  thing  called  political  influence. 

Take  the  messenger  service  in  these  various  departments.  I 
saw  a  man  in  one  of  the  departments  this  morning  whose  whole 
business  is  to  sit  at  a  door  and  open  it  when  people  come  in 
and  shut  it  when  they  go  out,  and  occasionally  to  run  into  an 
■  office  a  few  feet  distant.  Under  our  laws  these  messengers  get 
eight  hundred  dollars  a  year,  and  if  they  were  to  go  to  any 
business  man  in  this  city  they  could  not  get  half  the  money 
from  him  for  the  same  kind  of  service. 

We  employ  common  laborers  in  our  executive  departments, 
to  do  work  for  which  we  pay  them  twice,  or  more  than  twice, 
1  Report  of  (he  Secretary  of  (he  Interior,  Nov.  15,  1369. 


CIVIL  SERVICE  REFORM.  50 1 

as  much  as  they  can  get  anywhere  else  in  the  country  where 
they  are  paid* the  current  rate  of  wages.  In  doing  so  we  de- 
moralize the  whole  system  of  labor.  We  pick  one  man  out 
of  a  thousand  and  give  him  triple  wages,  thus  making  all  the 
rest  discontented  office-seekers.  Now,  who  is  at  fault  .in  this? 
Not  the  President  of  the  United  States,  not  the  Secretary  of  the 
Treasury,  not  the  head  of  any  department  of  this  administra- 
tion, —  not  any  or  all  of  these,  exclusively  or  mainly.  The  fault 
lies  here,  fellow-citizens  of  the  House  of  Representatives,  — 
here,  with  us  and  our  legislation.  We  make  the  laws ;  we  fix  the 
rate  of  wages ;  we  render  workingmen  discontented  with  ordi- 
nary gains,  by  picking  out  and  promoting  in  an  unreasonable 
and  exceptional  way  the  few  men  we  hire,  and  they  hold  their 
places  at  our  mercy  and  at  our  caprice.  They  are  liable  at  any 
moment  to  be  pushed  aside  for  another  favorite.  Their  service 
is  miserable  because  of  its  uncertainty.  It  tends  to  take  away 
their  independence  and  manliness,  and  make  them  the  mere 
creatures  of  those  in  power. 

We  do  all  this  ourselves ;  we  go,  man  by  man,  to  the  heads 
of  these  several  departments,  and  say,  "  Here  is  a  friend  of 
mine ;  give  him  a  place."  We  press  such  appointments  upon 
the  departments;  we  crowd  the  doors;  we  fill  the  corridors; 
Senators  and  Representatives  throng  the  offices  and  bureaus 
until  the  public  business  is  obstructed,  the  patience  of  officers 
is  worn  out,  and  sometimes,  for  fear  of  losing  their  places  by 
our  influence,  they  at  last  give  way  and  appoint  men,  not 
because  they  are  fit  for  the  positions,  but  because  we  ask  it. 

There,  Mr.  Chairman,  in  my  own  judgment,  is  the  true 
field  for  retrenchment  and  reform.  I  believe  that  we  can,  at 
almost  half  the  present  cost,  manage  all  these  departments 
better  than  they  are  now  managed,  if  we  adopt  a  judicious 
system  of  civil  service.  There  are  scores  of  auditing  and 
accounting  officers,  heads  of  bureaus  and  divisions,  there  are 
clerks  charged  with  quasi  judicial  functions,  through  whose 
hands  pass  millions  in  a  day,  and  upon  whose  integrity  and 
ability  the  revenues  of  the  nation  largely  depend,  who  are 
receiving  far  less  than  the  railroad,  telegraph,  insurance,  man- 
ufacturing, and  other  companies  pay  for  services  far  less  re- 
sponsible. Such  officers  we  do  not  pay  the  market  value  of 
their  services.  When  we  find  that  the  duties  of  any  office 
demand  ability,  cultivation,  and  experience,  let  a  liberal  salary 


=CM* 


cira.  szjtvicE  reform. 


tK  s*vca  IB  order  go  procure  the  sennccs  of  the  best  man ; 
^  lot  tbc  tftere  nunual  duties  of  these  ciirA.  departmeats, 
\%S  i>  j^i  lUCD  r«r  the  market  prke. 

\(.-«.    «it.   wlut  do  «~e  sec?     The  Republican  party  ts  not 

«io4.>w){   tocwonj   to   niakc  this   needed   change.     The   Demo- 

(mU^  l'«Mt>    •*  *"*>*  moWng  fop*-ard  to  make  it.     We  are  cb- 

Hf^kiift  ihc*  pfivilcsrcs,  so  called,  and  our  political  opponents 

1^   «Mttiz^;  imd  watching  and  hoping  for  the  time  to  come 

%teik  tfcvy  CkUt  do  the  same, —  when  we  shall  be  out  of  power, 

^jj-f  tbcv   sImU  come  >n,  to  do  the  same   miserable  \t'ork   of 

v^siiiit;  .Mhl  appointing  which  wc  are  called  upon  to  do  year 

> .  ,n       Now,   in   the   name   of  justice,   in   the   name  of 

let   us   take   hold    of  this   matter,   and  sustain   the 

.     V  of  the  Interior  in  the  kind  of  work  which  he  is  doing, 

«ij  Ik  V  JiU  the  other  departments  to  follow  his  example. 

S;^-ji«c  vne  may  say,  "That  is  very  fine  talk;  show  us  the 
u**;yw "'  I  will  tell  you  about  the  practice.  Tlie  Patcnt- 
V'th<-?  of  the  Inlerior  Department  has  during  a  whole  year 
^u  vN.m<lucted  in  part  on  the  plan  I  am  here  advocating.  No 
vuM,  *v*  fi"  **  I  know,  has  been  appointed  to  service  in  that 
^n■^,li^  o\ccpi  on  a  strict  competitive  examination.  The  re- 
imtt  »■■»  *'>•''  ^^'"^  see  in  the  management  of  the  Patcnt-OiRce 
(UMkvHl  I'tTiciency  and  economy.  But  what  can  a  department 
^i^  vih.n  <-^^  3  bureau  do,  with  the  whole  weight  of  Congres- 
ti^^HAl  inllmnce  pressing  for  the  appointment  of  men  because 
^^h^y  «n.'  mir  friends?  In  this  direction  is  the  true  line  of 
»|*tc»n>ini^'iip.  the  true  path  of  economy.  I  will  follow  cheer- 
^t^'  In  <'"-■  steps  of  my  distinguished  friend  whenever  he 
tv^h  tvnv.ud  genuine  economy.  Let  us  take  this  great  subject 
(U  hAUil,  iii'd  it  can  be  settled  in  a  very  few  weeks. 


l,  1870.  The  House  having  under  consideration  the  sale  of 
\\-i.  Garfield  made  some  remarks  on  competitive  examina- 
louching  upon  the  charges  in  circulation  to  the  effect  that 
t  le  sold,  he  continued  r  — 
KER,  —  This  House  will  not  have  done  its  duty  if 
mediately,  or  as  soon  as  practicable,  reform  this 
less  of  appointing  cadets  to  our  academics.  We 
ve,  in  addition  to  what  was  done  this  morning,  an 
—  and  I  think  it  is  perfectly  feasible  to  make  such 


CIVIL   SERVICE  REFORM.  503 

an  arrangement  —  that  all  appointments  shall  be  made  as  the 
result  of  district  competitive  examinations,  at  which  all  boys 
resident  in  the  district,  of  proper  age,  shall  have  an  opportunity 
to  compete  for  a  cadetship. 

Now,  if  the  House  will  indulge  me  for  a  minute  longer,  I  will 
give  my  own  experience  in  this  matter.  My  predecessor  in  this 
House  ^  instituted,  —  and  I  refer  to  it  the  more  freely  because  I 
did  not  originate  it,  —  my  predecessor,  I  say,  introduced  the 
principle  of  competitive  examination  in  the  district  which  I 
represent.  I  have  followed  it  during  the  time  I  have  been 
Representative,  and  I  desire  to  give  the  House  in  a  word  the 
result  of  that  experience. 

In  the  first  year  that  I  came  to  this  House,  it  happened  that 
there  were  two  cadets  to  be  appointed,  one  at  the  Military 
Academy  and  one  at  the  Naval  Academy.  Five  gentlemen, 
representing  each  of  the  counties  in  the  district  which  I  repre- 
sent, consented  to  act  as  examiners,  and  meet  at  a  central  place 
in  the  district.  Printed  notices  were  posted  up  in  every  post- 
office,  and  publication  was  made  in  every  newspaper  in  the 
district,  that,  on  a  given  day,  all  boys  within  the  prescribed 
ages  who  desired  to  go  to  either  of  the  academies  might  pre- 
sent themselves  for  examination.  The  result  was,  that  there  were 
thirty-seven  boys  examined,  and  the  best  two  were  selected. 
Those  two  boys  achieved  each  the  highest  distinction  in  the 
Military  and  Naval  Academics  when  they  graduated  last  fall, 
and  no  one  of  the  cadets  who  have  been  appointed  from  my  dis- 
trict since  I  have  been  a  member  of  the  House  has  fallen  below 
the  first  third  in  his  class,  and  much  less  has  one  been  rejected. 
I  know  of  several  districts  where  a  similar  custom  has  prevailed, 
with  similar  good  results  in  every  case  so  far  as  I  know. 

It  is  said  that  not  thirty-four  per  cent  of  the  boys  who  go  to 
West  Point  ever  graduate.  They  fail  for  various  reasons,  but 
many  of  them  because  they  are  picked  up  as  mere  representa- 
tives of  political  favoritism.  Now,  I  believe  we  shall  not  have 
done  our  duty  unless  we  go  to  the  bottom  of  this  matter,  and 
place  all  the  appointments  to  these  Academies  on  similar  ground.^ 

^  Mr.  John  Hutchins. 

2  On  March  28,  TS64,  Mr.  Garfield,  by  unanimous  consent,  introduced  the  follow- 
ing Resolution  :  —  "  Resolved^  That  the  Secretary  of  War  be  directed  to  furnish  this 
House  with  any  reports,  or  other  information  in  his  possession,  in  relation  to  a 
plan  for  competitive  examinations  for  admittance  of  cadets  to  the  Military  Acad- 
emy at  West  Point." 


504  CIVIL  SERVICE  REFORM. 

At  tbe  second  session  of  the  Forty-second  Congress,  the  Legislative^ 
Executive,  and  Judicial  Appropriation  Bill  came  back  to  the  House 
from  the  Senate  with  this  amendment :  "  To  enable  the  President  of  the 
United  States  to  perfect  and  put  in  force  such  rules  respecting  the  Civil 
Service  as  may  from  time  to  time  be  adopted  by  him,  f  50,000/'  The 
House  Committee  on  Appropriations  recommended  non-concurrence  in 
the  amendment    On  the  loth  of  April,  1872,  Mr.  Garfield  said :  — 

Mr.  Speaker,  —  I  cannot  allow  this  amendment  to  be  acted 
on  without  expressing  my  own  opinions  on  the  subject  to  which 
it  relates.  I  may  say  that  on  this  amendment  the  committee 
were  equally  divided  as  to  concurrence  or  non-concurrence, 
and  I  was  in  doubt  how  we  ought  to  report.  Perhaps,  there* 
fore,  it  is  best  simply  to  state  the  fact  as  I  have  done,  to  call 
that  the  report  of  our  action,  and  to  appeal  to  the  House  for 
the  settlement  of  the  question.  For  my  own  part,  I  desire  the 
Committee  of  the  Whole  to  concur  in  this  amendment  of  the 
•  Senate,  and  my  first  reason  will  be  found  in  a  simple  narrative 
of  the  facts  in  the  case. 

By  an  act  of  Congress  not  now  a  year  old,  the  President 
was  empowered  and  directed  to  do  whatever  he  could  to  se- 
cure some  measure  of  reform  in  the  civil  service  of  the  United 
States.  In  obedience  to  that  law  he  appointed  a  commission  of 
gentlemen  of  high  character,  and  directed  them  to  examine  the 
whole  subject.  That  commission  have  gone  ov^er  the  ground, 
have  examined  the  condition  of  the  civil  service,  and  have 
made  an  elaborate  report,  in  which  they  point  out  what  they 
regard  the  evils,  the  great  evils,  the  alarming  evils,  of  our  civil 
service ;  and  they  suggest  to  the  President  a  series  of  measures 
which  they  believe  will  aid  in  remedying  these  evils.  In  accord- 
ance with  their  recommendation,  the  President  has  ordered  a 
body  of  rules  to  be  prepared  to  regulate  the  civil  ser\'ice,  which 
rules,  when  approved  by  him,  he  proposes  to  put  in  force. 
That  body  of  rules  is  now  in  preparation  for  the  President's  use. 
What  they  will  be,  we  do  not  know ;  but  before  they  are  put 
in  execution  they  must  receive  the  President's  own  sanction. 
To  carry  out  this  purpose,  and  to  pay  the  necessary  expendi- 
tures under  the  law,  the  President  asks,  and  the  Senate  has 
granted  in  this  bill,  an  appropriation  of  $50,000. 

The  simple  history  of  the  case,  it  seems  to  me,  makes  it  de- 
cent and  becoming,  makes  it  reasonable  and  necessary,  that  the 
House  should  accord  with  the  Senate  in  granting  an  appropria- 


CIVIL  SERVICE  REFORM.  505 

tion  for  this  purpose.  It  is  due  to  the  President,  it  is  due  to 
ourselves  and  the  law  we  have  enacted,  that  a  fair  trial  of  the 
attempt  at  reform  should  be  made.  On  this  ground,  which  of 
itself  I  deem  a  sufficient  one,  I  ask  the  House  to  concur  in  this 
amendment. 

Now  I  know,  sir,  that  it  is  becoming  very  fashionable  upon 
this  floor  to  sneer  at  civil  service  reform.  I  agree  with  what 
many  gentlemen  say  here  in  criticising  some  of  the  many 
modes  proposed  for  carrying  out  that  reform;  I  agree  that 
some  of  the  modes  suggested  arc  Utopian,  and  possibly  worth- 
less ;  I  agree  that  many  of  the  plans  for  reform  would  amount 
to  little  or  nothing ;  but  I  affirm,  as  the  result  of  much  reflec- 
tion, that  the  evil  complained  of  is  so  deep,  so  wide,  so  high, 
that  some  brave  Congress  must  meet  it,  must  grapple  with  it, 
must  overcome  it,  if  we  propose  to  continue  a  worthy  and 
noble  nation.  Of  this  I  have  no  more  doubt  than  I  have  that 
the  sun  is  circling  in  the  heavens  above  us  to-day. 

Now,  Mr.  Chairman,  without  referring  to  any  special  theory 
of  civil  service,  I  ask  whether  this  committee  is  prepared  to  say 
now  to  the  President,  to  the  Senate,  and  to  the  country,  that  we 
do  not  propose  to  make  any  attempt  whatever  in  the  direction  of 
civil  service  reform;  that  we  do  not  propose  to  expend  a  dollar 
for  that  purpose ;  that  we  propose  definitely,  and  now,  to  put  an 
end  to  the  attempt,  and  to  say  that  the  old  mad  whirl  of  office 
brokerage,  of  coining  the  entire  patronage  of  the  United  States 
into  mere  political  lucre,  shall  hereafter  be  the  order  of  the 
day,  and  that  nothing  shall  be  done  to  ennoble  our  public  ser- 
vice,—  that  no  shield  shall  be  interposed,  —  that  the  President 
of  the  United  States,  the  head  of  the  administration,  the  head  of 
his  party,  and  the  chief  of  the  nation,  shall  be  told  now  to  stop 
all  efforts  to  better  the  state  of  things,  and  let  the  wild  dance  go 
on  in  the  old  way.  I  will  not  believe  that  such  is  the  deliber- 
ate purpose  of  this  House. 


Two  days  later  (April  12th)  Mr.  Garfield  returned  to  the  subject  as 
follows :  — 

Mr.  Speaker,  —  I  have  given  away  all  but  fifteen  minutes  of 
the  hour  allotted  me  under  the  rules,  and  I  desire  in  the  time 
left  me  to  call  the  attention  of  the  House  to  one  other  of  the 
pending  amendments. 


5o6  CIVIL   SERVICE  REFORM. 

Some  things  have  been  said  in  the  Committee  of  the  Whole, 
concerning  the  civil  service  reform,  to  which  1  wish  to  call  the 
attention  of  the  House.  The  subject  has  been  before  the  House 
several  times  this  session,  and  the  country  ought  to  know  in 
what  spirit  it  has  been  treated  by  their  Representatives. 

Several  weeks  since  the  gentleman  from  Illinois^  made  a 
speech  on  this  subject,  which  has  been  very  generally  read 
throughout  the  country,  and  in  which  he  very  succinctly  stated 
his  views  of  the  nature  of  our  civil  service,  and  the  uses  to 
which  it  ought  to  be  put.     He  said:  — 

"  It  is  a  fundamental  principle  embodied  in  our  glorious  Constitution, 
that  the  machtnery  of  this  government  may  be  pulled  to  pieces  every 
four  years,  and  this  principk  has  been  put  into  practice  all  through  ihe 
history  of  this  government  every  time  a  new  administration  came  into 
power General  Grant  to-day  occupies  the  Presidential  chair  be- 
cause the  Republican  party  is  the  '  successful '  parly,  and  because  the 
offices  belong  to  the  suc^essfiil  party," 

I  admire  courage  even  in  a  bad  cause,  and  this  is  an  example 
of  undoubted  courage.  It  is  the  most  frank,  candid,  and  logical 
assault  that  I  have  yet  seen  on  the  civil  service  reform.  The 
gentleman  declares  that  Grant  was  made  President,  not  because 
the  people  wanted  him  for  the  public  service,  but  because  of 
the  offices  he  would  have  to  give  to  the  party  which  elected 
him.  This  will  be  startling  news  to  the  great  body  of  the 
American  people. 

In  the  debate  yesterday  the  gentleman  from  Indiana ^  called 
the  civil  service  reform  a  specimen  of  humbuggery.  "  It  was 
got  up,"  he  says,  "  in  the  interest  of  parties,  whose  object  it 
was  to  embarrass  the  operations  of  the  present  administration." 
"The  President  did  not  originate  the  measure;  it  was  originated 
in  Congress." 

Another  gentleman  said  that  in  an  evil  hour,  hastily  in  the 
night,  the  men  who  stood  guard  here  in  the  Capitol  allowed 
this  monster  to  be  born,  and  sent  out  to  plague  the  nation  and 
embarrass  the  administration.  The  gentleman  from  Massa- 
chusetts^ said  it  was  originated  by  a  Senator  from  Illinois. 
"  Without  one  word  of  debate  or  explanation,  the  provision  was 
put  on  an  appropriation  bill  and  sent  here;  and  then,  at  four 
o'clock  in  the  morning  of  the  last  day  of  the  session,  we  were 
obliged  to  pass  it  or  lose  the  bill.  Now,  sir,  the  President  could 
1  Mr.  Snapp.  *  Mr.  Sbanki.  *  Mr.  Butler. 


CIVIL  SERVICE  REFORM.  507 

do  nothing  else  than  what  he  did  in  inaugurating  this  system; 
for  I  look  upon  this  movement  as  the  origin  of  the  Cincin- 
nati Convention.  It  was  a  shrewd  politician's  trick  to  put  the 
President  in  such  a  position  that  if  he  did  not  inaugurate  it  he 
could  be  attacked,  and  if  he  did  inaugurate  it  and  failed  he 
could  still  be  attacked.     And  we  fell  into  that  trap." 

My  colleague  on  the  committee  ^  used  this  language :  *'  Nar- 
row-chested men  say  to  us  we  must  make  some  show  of  believ- 
ing in  civil  service  reform,  for  fear  of  what  they  may  say  of  us  at 
Cincinnati This  outcry  is  fomented  by  a  crowd  of  black- 
mailers in  the  city  of  Washington  and  around  this  Capitol." 

Another  gentleman  said :  "  I  believe  the  civil  service  is  much 
better  and  purer,  and  freer  from  corruption,  jobbery,  and  fraud, 
than  it  has  been  before  during  a  period  of  thirty  years." 

The  gentleman  from  Minnesota^  said:  "As  I  have  no  con- 
fidence in  these  rules  for  civil  service,  then  I  will  spit  upon 
them  and  vote  against  them The  gentleman  from  Indi- 
ana called  it  humbuggery;  I  will  call  it  a  delusion,  a  mere 
farce,  in  which  I  will  have  no  part." 

Now,  Mr.  Speaker,  those  of  us  who  do  believe  there  is  some- 
thing in  this  effort  for  civil  service  reform,  who  do  believe 
that  something  ought  to  be  done  to  better  that  service,  are  not 
willing  to  be  set  down  as  humbugs,  blackmailers,  as  stirrers- 
up  of  strife  to  disturb  the  administration,  and  as  "  fomenters  of 
treason  to  be  concentrated  at  the  Cincinnati  Convention."  I 
say  we  are  not  willing  to  rest  in  silence  under  such  imputa- 
tions, and  allow  our  opinions  to  be  despised  without  saying 
something  in  defence. 

In  the  elegant  language  of  two  of  the  assailants  of  this  re- 
form, they  propose  **  to  spit  upon  it."  One  gentleman  said  he 
would  **  spit  upon  the  idea."  Just  how  that  could  be  done  he 
did  not  tell  us ;  but  I  remind  gentlemen  that  this  business  of 
spitting  upon  men  and  reform  is  as  old  as  the  days  of  the  cru- 
cifixion of  our  Saviour.  But  spitting  and  reviling  have  never 
"  put  down  "  any  worthy  reform  or  thought. 

I  ask  the  attention  of  the  House  for  a  few  moments  while  I  tell 
when,  where,  and  by  whom  this  civil  service  reform  was  inau- 
gurated. The  first  notice  of  it  after  I  became  a  member  of  the 
House  was  as  far  back  as  the  Thirty-ninth  Congress,  when  Mr. 
Jenckes,  a  noble  man  from  Rhode  Island,  —  no  "  Western  hum- 

1  Mr.  Sargent.  *  Mr.  Dunnell. 


S08  CIVIL  SEHflCE  REFORM. 

bog,"  —  pointed  out  the  giowiog  evils  of  our  civil  service,  and  J 
when,  by  a  committee  which  bad  charge  of  the  subject  of  re- 
trenchment, facts  were  brought  into  this  House  which  no  man 
ventured  to  gainsay,  which  called  the  aitention  of  the  country 
to  the  Dcceasity  of  reform.  In  the  other  branch  of  Congress. 
attention  was  also  called  to  the  same  class  of  evils.  The  voice 
of  the  chief  ExecutK-e  was  first  heard  upon  the  subject,  in  recent 
times,  on  the  5th  of  December.  1870,  In  his  annual  message  of 
that  date,  the  President  said :  — 

"  Always  hsoi\j^  practical  refonns,  I  respectfuUj-  caU  rour  attentjon 
to  one  abuse  o*  long  standing,  which  I  vrould  like  to  see  remedied  by 
ihfct  Congres.  It  b  a  reform  in  the  civil  scrrice  of  the  co«ntr)r.  I 
wookl  have  it  go  beyond  the  mere  Axing  of  the  lentue  of  office  of  clerics 
and  emplcij'ees,  wbo  do  not  require  '  the  advice  and  consent  of  the  Sen- 
ale  '  to  make  dielr  appointmenis  complete.  I  wotild  have  il  govern,  not 
the  temire,  but  the  manner  of  making  aD  appointments.  There  is  no 
duty  which  so  much  embarrasses  the  Executive  and  heads  of  depart' 
mentsas  that  of  appointments  ;  nor  is  there  any  such  arduous  and  thank- 
less labor  imposed  on  Senators  and  Representatives  as  that  of  finding 
pUces  for  constituents.  The  present  5)-stem  does  not  secure  the  best 
men." 

I  invite  the  attention  of  gentlemen  who  say  that  our  system 
is  the  purest  and  best  that  can  be  conceived,  to  this  declaration 
of  the  President:  "The  present  system  does  not  secure  the 
best  men,  and  often  not  even  fit  men,  for  public  place.  The 
elevation  and  purification  of  the  civil  service  of  the  government 
will  be  hailed  with  approval  by  the  whole  people  of  the  United 
States." 

Over  against  what  we  heard  on  the  floor  yesterday,  I  put 
that  clear  and  manful  statement  of  the  President  of  the  United 
States,  and  I  also  call  the  attention  of  the  House  to  another 
statement  by  the  President  on  the  same  subject.  When  we 
had,  in  obedience  to  his  recommendation,  passed  a  law  provid- 
ing for  a  commission  to  aid  in  this  work,  and  when  he  had  ap- 
pointed that  commission,  and  they  had  made  their  report,  he 
sent  us,  on  the  rgth  of  December,  1871,  a  message  accompany- 
ing that  report,  in  which  he  says :  "  I  ask  for  all  the  strength 
which  Congress  can  give  me  to  enable  me  to  carry  out  the 
refonns  in  the  civil  service  recommended  by  the  Commis- 
sioners and  adopted,  to  take  effect,  as  before  stated,  on  January 
I,  1872."  ■    . 


CIVIL  SERVICE  REFORM.  509 

**  I  ask  for  all  the  strength  which  Congress  can  give  me." 
And  this  is  the  strength  you  gave  him  in  the  debate  of  yester- 
day on  this  floor ! 

Furthermore  he  says :  **  I  therefore  recommend  that  a  proper 
appropriation  be  made  to  continue  the  services  of  the  present 
board  for  another  year."  And  he  goes  on  to  recommend  that 
the  three  members  of  the  board  who  hold  other  positions  in 
the  public  service  be  authorized  to  receive  a  fair  compensation 
for  their  extra  services. 

And  now,  when  we  undertake  to  comply  with  this  recom- 
mendation, we  are  told  that  this  effort  is  made  by  the  enemies 
of  the  administration.  If  these  gentlemen  convince  the  coun- 
try that  they  are  carrying  out  the  wishes  of  the  President  by 
their  opposition  to  this  appropriation,  they  will  have  struck 
him  and  his  administration  a  more  fatal  blow  than  any  yet  de- 
livered by  those  who  use  their  right  to  criticise  him.  If  all  this 
effort  at  civil  service  reform  is  a  mere  piece  of  acting,  it  is  high 
time  the  country  should  know  it.  If  these  gentlemen  who  de- 
nounce civil  service  reform  so  loudly  will  convince  the  country 
that  the  President  has  been  insincere  in  all  this,  they  will 
thereby  make  the  Cincinnati  Convention  a  power  to  be  courted 
and  feared,  rather  than  denounced  and  "  spit  upon." 

Mr.  Sargent.  The  gentleman  from  Ohio  himself  says  the  plan  is  a 
humbug. 

The  gentleman  from  Ohio  says  no  such  thing. 

Mr.  Sargent.     He  says  it  has  proved  futile  and  ineffective. 

I  beg  the  gentlcman^s  pardon.  I  said  that  many  suggestions 
on  civil  service  reform  were  doubtless  idle  and  futile.  But  I 
did  not  say,  and  I  never  say,  that  the  pointing  out  of  evils  in 
the  civil  service  system,  or  that  the  demand  for  reform  in  the 
civil  service,  was  either  futile  or  a  humbug. 

Mr.  Sargent.  The  gentleman  was  speaking  of  the  rules  of  this  board. 

On  the  contrary,  I  stated  to  my  colleague  ^  on  the  committee, 
in  the  course  of  the  debate,  that  I  had  not  seen  the  new  rules ; 
and.this  amendment  refers  to  such  rules  as  may  yet  be  perfected 
and  adopted. 

I  hold  in  my  hand  a  speech  made  in  1835  by  no  less  a  man 
than  Daniel  Webster,  in  which  he  called  attention  to  the  great 

1  Mr.  Sargent. 


5IO  CIVIL  SERVICE  REFORM. 

evils  which  had  been  brought  into  the  public  service  by  tiie 
doctrine  that  "  to  the  victors  belong  the  spoils/'  and  in  clear 
and  powerful  language  denounced  those  evik.  I  quote  this 
language:  — 

''The  extent  of  the  patronage  springing  from  this  power  of  iqipoint- 
ment  and  removal  is  so  great,  that  it  brings  a  dangerous  mass  of  private 
and  personal  interests  into  operation  in  all  great  public  elections  and  pub- 
lic questions.  ....  The  unlimited  power  to  grant  office  and  to  take  it 
away  gives  a  command  over  the  hopes  and  fears  of  a  vast  multitude  of 
men.  It  is  generally  true  that  he  who  controls  another  man's  means  of 
living  controls  his  wiU.  ....  Office  of  every  kind  is  now  sought  with  ex- 
traordinary avidity,  and  the  condition  well  understood  to  be  attached  to 
every  office,  high  or  low,  is  indiscriminate  support  of  executive  measures, 

and  implicit  obedience  to  executive  will I  am  for  arresting  the 

furtlier  progress  of  this  executive  patronage  if  we  can  arrest  it     I  am  for 

staying  the  further  contagion  of  this  plague Sudden  removals 

from  office  are  seldom  necessary;  we  see  how  seldom  by  reference 
to  the  practice  of  the  government  under  all  administrations  irfiich  pre- 
ceded the  present  ....  I  desire  only,  for  the  present  at  least,  that 
when  the  President  turns  a  man  out  of  office  he  should  give  his  reasons 
for  it  to  the  Senate  when  he  nominates  another  person  to  iill  the  place. 
....  The  removing  power  as  recently  exercised  tends  to  turn  the  whole 
body  of  public  officers  into  partisans,  dependents,  favorites,  sycophants, 
and  man- worshippers."  ^ 

I  hope  gentlemen  will  not  call  this  the  language  of  "  hum- 
bug." 

In  the  same  debate,  S.  S.  Prentiss,  Senator  from  Mississippi,  a 
man  of  rare  power,  indorsed  Webster's  opinion  in  even  stronger 
terms,  and  pointed  out  the  great  falling  off  in  the  tone  of  the 
civil  service  of  that  day.     He  said :  — 

"  Since  the  avowal  of  that  unprincipled  and  barbarian  motto,  that '  to 
the  victors  belong  the  spoils,'  office,  which  was  intended  for  the  use  and 
benefit  of  the  people,  has  become  but  the  plunder  of  party.  Patronage 
is  waved  like  a  huge  magnet  over  the  land,  and  demagogues,  like  iron 
filings,  attracted  by  a  law  of  their  nature,  gather  and  cluster  around  its 
poles.     Never  yet  lived  the  demagogue  who  would  not  take  office. 

"  The  whole  frame  of  our  government,  the  whole  institutions  of  the 
country,  are  thus  prostituted  to  the  uses  of  party.  I  express  my  candid 
opinion  when  I  aver  that  I  do  not  believe  that  a  single  office  of  impor- 
tance within,  the  control  of  the  Executive  has  for  the  last  five  years  been 

1  See  Speech  on  the  Appointing  and  Removing  Power,  Webster's  Works,  Vol. 
IV.  pp.  179-199. 


CIVIL  SERVICE  REFORM.  51 1 

filled  with  any  other  view,  or  upon  any  other  consideration,  than  that  of 
party  effect.     Office  is  conferred  as  the  reward  of  partisan  service. 

"  Do  you  not  see  the  eagerness  with  which  even  Governors,  Senators, 
and  Representatives  in  Congress  grasp  at  the  most  trivial  appointments, 
the  most  insignificant  emoluments? *' 

The  gentlemen  who  framed  the  report  which  has  been  for- 
warded to  us  by  the  President  give  this  weighty  testimony :  — 

"  During  the  early  administrations  appointments  were  made  from  con- 
siderations of  character  and  fitness,  and  removals  took  place  for  cause. 
This  practice,  as  it  was  the  wisest  and  most  reasonable,  was  also  to  be 
expected,  because  Washington  was  unanimously  elected  to  the  Presi- 
dency, and  party  divisions,  as  we  know  them,  were  developed  only 
toward  the  close  of  his  administration.  He  required  of  applicants  proofs 
of  ability,  integrity,  and  fitness.  '  Beyond  this,*  he  said,  '  nothing  with 
me  is  necessary,  or  will  be  of  any  avail  to  them  in  my  decision.*  John 
Adams  made  few  removals,  and  those  for  cause.  Jefferson  said  that  the 
pressure  to  remove  was  like  a  torrent.  But  he  resisted  it,  and  declared, 
in  his  famous  phrase,  that  '  The  only  question  concerning  a  candidate 
shall  be.  Is  he  honest?  Is  he  capable?  Is  he  faithful  to  the  Constitu- 
tion ? '  Madison,  Monroe,  and  John  Quincy  Adams  followed  him  so  faith- 
fully that  the  joint  Congressional  Committee  on  Retrenchment  reported, 
in  1868,  that,  having  consulted  all  accessible  means  of  information,  they 
had  not  learned  of  a  single  removal  of  a  subordinate  officer,  except  for 
cause,  from  the  beginning  of  Washington's  administration  to  the  close  of 
that  of  John  Quincy  Adams.**  ^ 

Will  any  gentleman  risk  his  reputation  as  a  student  of  polit- 
ical history  by  denying  any  one  of  the  statements  here  made? 
I  think  not.  They  will  not  venture  to  say  that  Washington,  or 
John  Adams,  or  Jefferson,  or  any  of  our  Presidents  for  the  first 
forty  years  of  the  Constitution,  was  elected  because  of  the  offices 
which  the  **  successful  party  "  would  be  able  to  command. 

The  people,  the  millions  of  our  worthy  countrymen  who  look 
upon  our  system  of  government  with  reverence,  who  study  its 
workings  with  patriotic  affection,  have  not  yet  learned  the  lesson 
which,  during  the  last  two  days,  has  been  so  boldly  taught  on 
this  floor,  —  that  politics  is  a  trade,  and  officers  are  the  mere 
tools  and  implements  of  political  tradesmen.  How  will  gen- 
tlemen dispose  of  such  weighty  testimony  as  that  of  my  hon- 
ored colleague,^  not   now  in  his  seat,  who,    not  many  weeks 

1  Report  of  Civil  Service  Commission  of  December  19,  187 1,  p.  3. 

2  Mr.  Shellabarger. 


fiZ  CIVIL   SERVICE  REFORM. 

since,  chaUenged  the  attention  of  the  whole  country  by  hiffl 
powerful  arraignment  of  the  civil  service  as  it  now  is?  Hw 
said ;  — 

"A  '  civil  service  reform'  that  shall  end  this  control  by  the  Represrat^' 
live  of  the  appointments  of  liis  '  district '  will  rescue  the  Constitudori ' 
from  one  of  its  most  threatening  dangers.  Of  course,  Mr.  Speaker,  I 
am  not  liy  this  forbidding  the  President  to  take  information  as  lo  the  fit- 
ness of  appointments  from  any  intelligent  and  virtuous  citizen,  aJlhoogh 
he  may  be  a  member  of  Congress ;  but  what  I  am  deprecating  and  de- 
manding to  be  reformed  is  that  l>ad  usage  now  attaining  the  strength  of 
law,  by  which  Senators  and  members  are  expected,  and  even  constrained, 
to  control  the  appointments  of  their  Slates  and  districts. 

"  This  fratricidal  war  against  the  foundation  (jnalities  of  the  government 
was  begun  tliirty  years  ago  by  the  Democratic  party.  The  war  took  for 
its  motto  and  put  upon  its  banners  this  :  '  To  the  victors  belong  the  spoils,' 
May  Heaven  make  it  so  that  it  shall  be  one  of  the  new  and  crowning 
acliievemcuts  of  the  Republican  party  to  efface  that  raoUO,  and  efface  ' 
forever  1  And  may  there  be  written  over  it  in  letters  inextinguishably 
'  To  the  people  belong  the  offices,  for  free  bestowment  upon  those 
worthy  to  fill  tiicm '  I " 

It  will  lake  a  battalion  of  such  assailants  as  have  praised  our 
service  as  spotless,  and  denounced  all  attempts  at  reform  as 
"  humbug,"  to  controvert  the  truth  of  these  weighty  words.  I 
am  proud  to  stand  in  the  company  of  those  who  favor  a  reform 
in  this  direction.  In  doing  this,  I  denounce,  not  men,  but  a 
system. 

From  the  days  of  Jackson  down  to  the  present  hour,  without 
the  sole  fault  of  any  one  administration,  but  by  the  process  of 
slow,  insidious  growth,  we  have  been  going  on  step  by  step, 
until  we  have  reached  a  situation  which  is  deplored  by  the  most 
thoughtful  men  in  the  nation.  It  is  true  our  public  service  is 
and  has  always  been  purer  than  that  which  Brutus  described 
when  he  said,  — 

"  r,et  me  tell  you,  Cassius,  you  yourself 
Are  much  condemned  (o  have  an  itching  palm; 
To  sell  and  mart  your  offices  for  gold 
To  undeservers." 

But  it  is  the  logic  and  the  tendency  of  our  whole  system  to 
sell  the  public  offices  for  political  favors  and  for  aid  to  political 
parties.  It  is  this  condition  of  things  which  the  President  of  the 
United  States  asks  all  his  friends  everywhere  to  help  him  re- 
form, and  which  is  rudely  denounced  by  those  who  assume  to 


labl^^^H 


CIVIL   SERVICE  REFORM.  513 

be  his  special  champions.  I  hope  the  House  will  vote  down  the 
amendment  made  by  the  Committee  of  the  Whole  on  the  state 
of  the  Union,  and  vote  for  the  amendment  of  the  Senate,  and 
I  shall  demand  a  vote  by  yeas  and  nays  that  we  may  see  who 
are  willing  to  aid  the  President 


On  the  19th  of  April,  1872,  the  civil  service  was  discussed  in  the 
House,  pending  a  bill  introduced  by  Mr.  Willard  of  Veraiont,  to  pre- 
serve the  independence  of  the  several  departments  of  the  government 
President  Grant's  executive  order  promulgating  the  amended  civil  ser- 
vice rules  and  regulations  of  1872  had  appeared  three  days  before.* 
Mr.  Garfield  made  the  following  remarks  :  — 

Mr.  Speaker,  —  Three  things  have  been  brought  promi- 
nently before  us  in  this  debate :  first,  that  the  Constitution  of 
the  United  States  does  not  permit  us  to-  inaugurate  any  civil 
service  reform ;  secondly,  that  the  interests  of  our  great  party 
do  not  allow  us  to  enter  upon  any  such  reform ;  and  thirdly, 
that  our  civil  service  is  now  so  pure  that  it  is  not  worth  while 
to  attempt  to  make  it  better.  These  three  points  have  met  us  at 
every  turn  in  this  debate,  and  I  wish  to  say  a  word  or  two  con- 
cerning each. 

My  colleague  ^  has  just  been  telling  the  House  what  the  Con- 
stitution and  its  guaranties  are  in  this  regard,  and  what  is  the 
effect  of  the  teachings  of  the  Constitution  upon  this  bill.  I  call 
the  attention  of  my  colleague  to  the  fact  that,  from  the  days  of 
the  fathers  down  nearly  to  the  present  time,  it  has  been  the 
golden  rule  of  this  government  that  the  three  great  departments 
should  be  separate,  independent  of  each  other,  coequal,  co- 
ordinate, and  that  the  rights  of  neither  should  be  encroached 
upon  by  the  others.  There  never  was  a  nobler  utterance  on 
this  point  than  that  made  by  John  Adams,  which  was  adopted 
by  all  the  fathers  of  the  government,  and  embodied  in  the  con- 
stitutions of  many  of  the  States,  that  the  "  legislative  depart- 
ment shall  never  exercise  the  executive  and  judicial  powers,  or 
either  of  them ;  the  judicial  shall  never  exercise  the  legislative 
and  executive  powers,  or  either  of  them;  and  the  executive 

*  The  bill  introduced  by  Mr.  Willard,  and  the  executive  order,  together  with 
the  civil  service  rules  and  regulations,  are  found  in  McPherson's  '*  Handbook  of 
Politics  "  for  1872,  pp.  64-69. 

*  Mr.  Bingham. 

VOL.   I.  J3 


514  CIVIL  SERVICE  REFORM. 

shall  never  exercise  the  legislative  and  judicial  powers,  or  either 
of  them,  to  the  end  that  it  may  be  a  government  of  laws,  and 
not  of  men." 

Now  I  affirm,  Mr.  Speaker,  that  during  the  last  forty  years 
the  spirit  and  meaning  of  that  rule  have  been  repeatedly  vio- 
lated in  the  mode  in  which  our  civil  service  has  been  adminis- 
tered. It  cannot  be  said  with  even  a  show  of  truth  that  the 
Executive  of  this  government  does  now  exercise  his  constitu- 
tional function  of  nomination  to  office  even,  without  the  con- 
stant and  increasing  pressure  of  the  legislative  department 
And  for  many  years  the  Presidents  of  the  United  States  have 
been  crying  out  in  their  agony  to  be  relieved  of  this  unconsti- 
tutional, crushing,  irresistible  pressure  brought  to  bear  upon 
them  by  the  entire  body  of  that  party  in  the  legislative  depart- 
ment which  elected  them  to  power.  Individual  members  of 
Congress  are  no  longer  wholly  responsible  for  this  state  of 
things,  for  they  are  also  pressed  by  their  political  friends  for 
help,  which  it  is  understood  they  are  able  to  render.  It  is 
hardly  possible  for  any  man  in  public  life  to  escape  this  pres- 
sure. But  this  state  of  things  has  grown  up  gradually,  and  by 
almost  imperceptible  degrees,  until  the  old  adjustment  of  the 
different  departments  of  the  government  is  wholly  changed. 

I  affirm  that  this  present  custom  and  policy  is  an  apostasy 
from  the  original  policy  of  the  government,  —  an  apostasy 
alarming  in  its  character;  and  that  the  chief  reason  why  a 
reform  in  the  civil  service  is  required  is  that  the  three  powers 
of  the  government,  or  particularly  the  two  powers,  the  legisla- 
tive and  executive,  may  be  restored  to  their  independence,  — 
may  be  left  unawed  and  uninfluenced  by  the  pressure  of  per- 
sonal dictation  and  control. 

We  sometimes  complain  because  our  public  buildings  are 
scattered  so  widely  over  this  city.  That  policy  was  inaugurated 
by  President  Washington,  because  he  said  the  departments 
ought  to  be  kept  separate  and  so  far  apart  that  there  should  be 
no  interference  or  collusion  between  them.  It  is  for  that  reason 
that  our  public  buildings  here  were  located  at  points  so  remote 
from  each  other. 

Mr.  Speaker,  we  are  told  that  our  public  service  is  now  as 
good  as  any  in  the  world.  The  President  says  in  his  first  mes- 
sage which  relates  to  this  subject,  that  "  the  present  system 
does  not  secure  the  best  men,  and  often  not  even  fit  men,  for 


CIVIL  SERVICE  REFORM.  515 

public  place."  That  is  what  the  President  of  the  United  States 
says  to  the  gentlemen  who  oppose  civil  service  reform,  and  who 
say  that  this  system  is  so  good  that  nothing  more  is  needed. 

Next  comes  the  plea  for  party  and  its  necessities.  Our  party, 
the  gentleman  from  California  ^  tells  us,  has  done  gloriously  in 
the  past.  I  agree  with  him  in  this,  and  there  are  few  things 
that  gentleman  says  in  which  I  do  not  agree  with  him.  But  he 
goes  on  to  say  that  our  party  is  doing  its  work  well,  and  had 
better  not  be  disturbed  by  measures  of  this  sort.  Other  gen- 
tlemen have  intimated  that  no  party  in  this  country  could  live 
without  the  use  of  the  government  patronage  to  keep  it  in 
power.  The  gentleman  from  Illinois  ^  boldly  told  us  that  the 
only  way  we  ever  elected  a  President  was  by  letting  his  support- 
ers understand  that  they  were  to  enjoy  the  spoils  of  office  as  a 
reward  of  success.  Mr.  Speaker,  the  history  of  the  country  and 
its  parties  teaches  me  a  different  lesson.  The  best  and  noblest 
reforms  and  revolutions  in  the  public  sentiment  of  this  coun- 
try have  been  achieved  by  the  people  with  patronage,  power, 
and  the  spoils  of  office  against  them,  and  where  not  one  in  a 
hundred  of  the  successful  expected  any  other  reward  than  the 
triumph  of  the  principle  they  advocated.  In  such  conflicts  our 
noblest  triumphs  have  been  achieved.  But,  sir,  if  we  are  to  look 
at  mere  party  success,  I  would  still  say  that  a  reform  in  our 
civil  service  is  fast  becoming  a  demand  of  our  time  which  no 
party  can  afford  to  ignore. 

The  gentleman  from  Massachusetts®  tells  us  we  got  along 
well  in  our  war;  that  the  paymasters  settled  our  accounts  so 
well  that  we  stood  pre-eminently  above  England  in  her  settle- 
ments during  the  Crimean  war.  Our  paymasters  did  well; 
and  why?  Because  we  had  a  system  of  service  by  which  every 
officer  was  held  to  a  strict  accountability,  a  system  under  which 
we  do  not  remove  an  officer  from  office  upon  the  demand  of 
any  politician  who  may  want  his  place.  Our  navy  and  our 
army  both  belong  to  that  class  of  service  which  is  the  poles 
apart  from  the  kind  of  service  to  which  this  measure  relates. 
There  is  no  great  and  eminently  successful  department  of  this 
government  which  has  not  been  made  so  by  being  taken  out 
of  the  ordinary  channels  of  political  management.  Is  there  a 
man  here  who  would  be  willing  to  turn  the  Coast  Survey  over 
to  the  fate  of  our  ordinary  civil  service?     In  that  bureau  we 

1  Mr.  Sargent  '  Mr.  Snapp.  *  Mr.  Butler. 


5l6  CIVIL   SERyiCB  REFORM. 

have  a  system  of  promolion  by  merit,  which  has  given  us 
those  distinguished  and  noble  men  who  in  that  service  have 
crowned  the  nation  with  honor.  So  with  the  Light-House 
Board;  and  so  with  all  the  branches  of  our  service  which  have 
really  been  an  honor  to  human  nature,  and  a  glory  to  the  nation 
itself.  It  is  because  we  wish  to  lift  other  departments  to  a  sim- 
ilarly high  plane,  that  we  ask  the  power  of  Congress  to  some 
measure  of  civil  service  reform. 

I  pass  to  another  point.  Gentlemen  who  defend  the  purity 
of  our  civil  service  say  that  it  is  now  doing  well,  and  needs  no 
reform.  I  ask  those  gentlemen  what  they  think  of  the  system 
of  political  assessments.  I  ask  them  what  they  think  of  the 
collector  of  a  great  port,  or  the  chief  of  any  great  branch  of  the 
service,  issuing  a  circular  calling  for  one,  two,  or  three  per  cent 
of  the  salaries  of  all  the  employees  under  his  control,  to  be  used 
for  party  purposes,  with  the  distinct  understanding  that,  unless 
they  pay  the  assessment,  others  will  be  found  to  fill  their  places 
who  will  pay  them.  I  call  the  attention  of  gentlemen  around 
me  to  that  shameful  fact,  which  prevails  all  through  our  service, 
and  which  has  prevailed  for  the  last  twenty-five  years;  and  I 
call  their  attention  to  the  honorable  fact,  that,  in  this  very  execu- 
tive order,  published  two  mornings  ago,  which  has  met  such  a 
contemptuous  reception  in  this  House,  the  President  of  the 
United  States  says,  "  Political  assessments,  as  they  are  called, 
have  been  forbidden  in  the  various  departments."  Here  is  an 
executive  order  forbidding  political  assessments,  and  yet  gen- 
tlemen around  me  do  not  want  this  order  of  the  President  to 
prevail,  because  the  practice  which  it  condemns  affords  a  large 
so-called  electioneering  fund,  which  in  many  cases  never  gets 
beyond  the  pockets  of  the  hangers-on  and  mere  camp-followers 
of  the  party. 

Now,  Mr.  Speaker,  I  desire  to  say  a  word  in  another  direc- 
tion. During  the  debate  of  last  week,  and  also  of  yesterday, 
insinuations  were  made  affecting  the  motives  of  public  officers 
and  of  members,  which  I  do  not  propose  to  pass  over  in  silence. 
We  were  told  in  very  plain  language  that  this  civil  service  busi- 
ness is  a  trick  of  some  people  who  do  not  like  the  President, 
and  who  want  to  get  up  a  hostile  movement  at  Cincinnati,  and 
that  the  President  has  been  caught  in  a  trap  spread  for  him  by 
Congress  at  the  instigation  of  his  enemies.  "  Mark  now,  how  a 
plain  tale  shall  put  you  down." 


CIVIL  SERVICE  REFORM.  517 

In  speaking  yesterday  of  the  history  of  this  movement,  the 
gentleman  from  Massachusetts  ^  said  it  began  in  the  Senate  on 
an  amendment  to  an  appropriation  bill,  which  came  over  here 
and  was  passed  in  the  last  hours  of  the  session,  far  into  the 
morning,  and,  being  thus  forced  upon  the  President,  he  was  com- 
pelled to  take  the  action  he  did  take.  My  answer  is  the  plain 
facts  of  the  case,  that  the  measure  originated  not  in  the  Senate 
on  the  night  of  March  4,  187 1,  but  in  the  President's  message  of 
December  5,  1870,  where  these  words  are  used:  "  I  respectfully 
call  your  attention  to  one  abuse  of  long  standing,  which  I  would 
like  to  see  remedied  by  this  Congress.  It  is  a  reform  in  the 
civil  service  of  the  country."  That  was  four  months  before  the 
amendment  of  which  the  gentleman  speaks  was  put  on  in 
the  Senate.  In  obedience  to  the  request  of  the  President,  on 
the  4th  of  March,  1871,  the  amendment  was  added,  authoriz- 
ing the  President  to  devise  some  means  for  the  regulation  of  the 
public  service.  Then,  ten  months  after  the  law  had  been  passed, 
in  obedience  to  the  President's  recommendation,  a  message 
came  to  us  from  the  President,  bearing  date  December  19, 
1 87 1,  forwarding  the  report  of  the  commissioners,  and  say- 
ing :  **  I  ask  for  all  the  strength  which  Congress  can  give  me 
to  enable  me  to  carry  out  reforms  of  the  civil  service  recom- 
mended by  the  commissioners,  and  adopted,  to  take  effect  on 
the  1st  of  January,  1872." 

Mr.  Bingham.  My  colleague  will  notice  that  the  President  reserves  to 
himself  the  right  to  amend  the  rules. 

Certainly,  he  reserves  to  himself  the  right  to  amend  the  rules. 
And  now,  on  the  i6th  of  April,  1872,  he  sends  us  an  executive 
order  with  a  body  of  rules  which  the  experience  of  several 
months  more  has  enabled  him  to  present  in  an  amended  form, 
and  he  calls  upon  Congress  to  support  him  in  carrying  these 
rules  into  effect. 

Now,  I  have  recounted  briefly  the  stages  by  which  we  reached 
the  present  situation  in  regard  to  the  civil  service  question. 
I  have  shown  you  that  the  reform  was  begun  by  the  President, 
that  it  has  been  followed  up  by  the  President,  and  that  he  has 
asked  the  help  of  Congress  in  carrying  it  out. 

I  desire  to  say,  as  the  sum  of  all  I  wish  to  offer  to  the  House 
on  this  subject,  that  we  have  now  reached  a  point  in  this  legisla- 

1  Mr.  Butler. 


5i8  CIVIL  SERVICE  REFORM. 

tion  where,  in  my  judgment,  one  thing  is  absolutely  necessary. 
That  is,  that  the  Congress  of  the  United  States  shall  abdicate 
its  usurped  and  pretended  right  to  dictate  appointments  to 
the  chief  Executive.  Now,  I  am  not  willing  to  go  as  far  as  the 
gentleman  from  Vermont,'  and  make  a  recommendation  to  the 
President  a  criminal  offence,  although  I  would  remind  my  col- 
league from  Ohio  ^  that  we  have  a  law  which  does  make  it  a 
criminal  offence  for  members  of  Congress  to  practise  in  the 
claims  departments  of  the  government. 

Let  us  show  our  willingness  to  aid  the  President  in  this  matter 
by  removing  the  great  pressure  of  Congressional  solicitation, 
and  then  hold  him  responsible  for  the  manner  in  which  he  dis- 
charges his  duties. 


On  the  2 2d  of  February,  1873,  pending  the  question  whether  money 
should  be  appropriated  to  defray  the  expenses  of,  or  pay  the  salary  or 
compensation  to,  any  officers  engaged  in  the  so-called  competitive  civil 
service  examinations,  Mr.  Garfield  said  :  — 

On  the  question  of  civil  service  reform,  my  opinions  are  well 
known.  I  have  never  assented  to  all  the  plans  and  methods 
adopted  by  the  administration  in  regard  to  appointments  under 
the  civil  service  system.  A  great  deal  may  be  said  to  excite 
levity  as  to  the  mode  of  examination  and  the  questions  put 
But  I  stand  here  to  say  that  an  administration  that  has  had  the 
courage  to  undertake  to  reform  the  civil  service  as  we  have 
known  it,  to  seek  some  method  that  shall  put  it  on  the  basis  of 
merit,  and  not  on  the  basis  of  mere  political  patronage  for 
party  service,  ought  not  to  be  **  whistled  down  the  wind  "  by 
speech  or  speeches  designed  merely  to  ridicule  the  methods 
employed. 

The  great  political  parties  of  the  country  have  said  that  they 
are  in  favor  of  a  measure  of  civil  service  reform.^  The  country 
is  demanding  it.  And  what  I  complain  of,  on  the  part  of  gentle- 
men who  oppose  everything  attempted,  is  that  they  offer  noth- 
ing instead.  They  propose  no  affirmative  action  ;  they  simply 
oppose  whatever  is  attempted  in  that  direction. 

1  Mr.  Willard.  «  Mr.  Bingham. 

'  See  Philadelphia  and  Cincinnati  Platforms  of  1872. 


CIVIL  SERVICE  REFORM.  519 

Pending  a  similar  question,  June   12,  1874,  Mr.  Garfield  spoke  as 
follows :  — 

The  simple  question  before  the  House  now  is  not  whether 
the  civil  service  examination  that  has  been  advised  is  a  wise  and 
just  thing,  and  the  best  thing  that  can  be  done.  It  is  whether 
we  will  try  any  longer  to  do  anything  to  better  our  civil  service. 
I  hope  gentlemen  will  make  that  issue  squarely  and  fairly,  and 
meet  it.  If  we  intend  that  no  further  effort  shall  be  made,  that 
the  whole  matter  shall  be  abandoned,  then  say  so ;  that  is  plain 
and  square  work.  If  we  propose  to  return  to  the  old  Demo- 
cratic system  that  we  have  inherited  and  been  using,  —  the  sys- 
tem that  holds  that  the  whole  body  of  patronage,  that  the  forty, 
fifty,  sixty,  or  seventy  thousand  officeholders  of  the  country, 
are  a  mere  set  of  pawns  to  be  played  for  in  politics,  to  be  given 
as  gifts  to  political  victors,  —  if  we  simply  mean  to  trade  and 
make  merchandise  of  the  offices  of  the  United  States,  —  say  it ; 
say  it,  and  parcel  out  to  the  victorious  members  of  Congress 
and  the  victorious  party  leaders  their  share  of  the  gifts  of  office ; 
say  it,  and  stand  by  it,  with  your  heads  up  in  the  light,  and 
defend  it.  But  if,  on  the  contrary,  we  believe  that  the  offices  of 
the  government  were  made  for  the  service  of  the  nation,  and 
not  to  be  \i\t  peculium  of  individuals,  then  let  us  at  least  be  will- 
ing to  keep  on  experimenting,  and  see  whether  there  be  any 
way  by  which  this  great  national  shame  can  be,  in  part  at  least, 
abated.  The  plain  proposition  now  is,  that  we,  like  swine,  shall 
return  to  our  wallowing  in  the  mire;  that  all  the  past,  which  we 
have  resolved  against  in  conventions  and  written  against  in  our 
political  pamphlets,  shall  now  be  hugged  and  embraced  as  the 
true  political  doctrine  of  the  American  future. 

Now,  I  do  not  believe  in  most  of  the  things  that  have  been 
done  in  this  matter  of  civil  service  examinations.  Much  of  it  is 
trifling.  It  is  too  schoolmasterly.  There  is  a  great  deal  in  it 
that  does  not  come  up  to  the  level  of  our  practical  necessities. 
But  let  us  try,  try  on ;  and  let  us  appropriate  the  small  sum  of 
$25,000  to  keep  trying,  so  as  to  see  whether  something  may  not 
be  done  to  better  the  civil  service  of  the  United  States.  With 
this  view,  I  implore  gentlemen  on  this  floor  not  to  throw  us  back 
into  the  abuses  of  the  past,  and  abandon  all  hope  or  purpose  of 
doing  anything  better  for  the  future.  On  this  score  I  hope  — 
no,  I  wish  —  that  this  House  would  appropriate  the  sum  pro- 
posed ;  and  I  regret  that  the  Committee  on  Appropriations  did 
not  embody  such  a  proposition  in  the  bill. 


THE   TARIFF    BILL   OF    1870. 

SPEECH   DELIVERED   IN   THE   HOUSE   OF   REPRESENTATIVES, 
April  t,  187a 


After  the  failure  of  the  attempt  to  increase  ihe  customs  duties,  made 
under  liie  leadership  of  Mr.  J.  S.  Morrill  in   i866,  there  was  no  funhei  J 
attempi  to  legislate  comprehensively  ot  sv-stemaiically  upon    the    taii^fl 
until  the  second  session  of  the  Forty-first  Congress.     February  i,  1870^^ 
Chairman  Schenck,  of  the  Committee  of  Ways  and  Means,  introduced  a 
bill  to  amend  existing  laws  relating  to  the  duty  on  imports,  and  for  other 
purposes.    The  siliiation  had  greatly  changed  since  1S66.    Thetemperof 
the  public  mind  tailed  imperaiivuly  for  a  reduttioti  in  ihe  cuslonis  dutiffi. 
Accordingly,  the  Schenck  bill  was  a  reduction  measure.     Pending  this 
bill  in  Committee  of  the  Whole,  Mr.  Garfield  delivered  the  following 
speech. 

The  charge  that  Mr.  Garfield  was  a  free-trader,  at  one  time  cuireDt, 
finds  more  to  support  it  in  this  speech,  and  in  his  remarks  and  votet 
pending  the  bill,  than  in  anything  else  in  his  public  record.  The  careful 
reader  of  the  speech,  and  of  Mr.  Garfield's  whole  record  touching  it, 
will  see  that  he  recognized  the  fact  that  the  condition  of  the  country 
and  the  state  of  the  public  mind  demanded  some  relief  from  customs 
taxation,  and  that  the  state  of  the  Treasury,  as  well  as  the  condition  of 
national  industries,  would  justify  some  reduction ;  but  that  in  no  sense 
did  he  give  up  the  protective  principle,  and  that  the  great  question  with 
him  was.  Granted  a  given  reduction  in  taxation,  how  can  it  be  best  dis- 
tributed? His  historical  outline  of  the  growth  of  free  commerce,  and 
his  reference  to  the  state  of  the  Western  mind  touching  protection,  were 
brought  forward  rather  to  induce  protectionists  to  consent  to  reducdoD 
than  to  establish  the  doctrine  of  free  trade. 

The  debate  on  the  bill  dragged  wearily  on  towards  the  end  of  the 
session.  At  last,  when  it  became  morally  certain  that  it  could  not  be 
carried  through  the  House,  as  a  whole,  for  want  of  time  if  for  no  other 
reason,  material  portions  of  it  were  added  to  the  Internal  Tax  BilL    The 


THE   TARIFF  BILL   OF  1870.  521 

latter  biU,  as  amended,  finally  passed  both  houses  at  the  end  of  the  ses- 
sion. In  the  Statutes  at  Large  its  caption  is,  "  An  Act  to  reduce  Internal 
Taxes,  and  for  other  Purposes,"  approved  July  14,  1870. 


MR.  CHAIRMAN,  —  You  will  doubtless  agree  with  me 
that  any  man  deserves  the  sympathy  of  this  House  who 
rises  to  add  one  more  to  the  forty-two  speeches  which  have  al- 
ready been  made  on  this  subject,  and  to  fill  the  two  hundred  and 
first  column  of  the  Daily  Globe  with  his  suggestions ;  but  I 
congratulate  the  House  that  we  are  so  near  the  end  of  this 
general  debate  and  the  beginning  of  the  bill. 

The  debate  has  been  able  and  searching.  I  have  listened 
carefully  to  the  various  and  conflicting  views,  and  have  tried  to 
consider  them  impartially.  An  unusual  amount  of  valuable  in- 
formation has  been  communicated  to  the  House,  but  I  am  com- 
pelled  to  say  that  much  of  the  argument  has  had  reference  to 
abstract  theories  rather  than  to  the  practical  issues  involved  in 
the  bill. 

A  great  philosopher  once  said  that  abstract  definitions  had 
done  more  injury  to  the  human  race  than  war,  famine,  and  pesti- 
lence  combined ;  and  I  am  not  sure  but  a  philosophical  history  of 
the  struggles  and  difficulties  through  which  the  civilized  world 
has  passed  would  prove  the  truth  of  his  observation.  I  trust  no 
such  disasters  are  likely  to  result  from  this  discussion,  and  yet  I 
think  we  are  approaching  the  verge  of  a  great  danger  from  a 
similar  cause.  The  most  acrimonious  utterances  that  we  have 
heard  in  these  forty-two  speeches  were  made  concerning  the  ab- 
stract ideas  of  free  trade  and  protection ;  and  I  fully  agree  with 
my  colleague  ^  in  his  declaration  that  a  large  part  of  the  debate 
has  not  applied  to  the  bill,  but  to  abstractions. 

There  is,  no  doubt,  a  real  and  substantial  difference  of  opinion 
among  those  who  have  debated  this  subject, —  a  difference  which 
discloses  itself  in  almost  every  practical  proposition  contained  in 
the  bill ;  but  I  am  convinced  that  the  terms  used  and  the  theories 
advocated  do  not  to  any  considerable  extent  represent  practical 
issues.  There  are,  indeed,  two  points  of  the  greatest  importance 
involved  in  this  bill  and  all  bills  relating  to  taxes.  One  is  the 
necessity  of  providing  revenue  for  the  government,  and  the  other 

1  Mr.  Schenck. 


524  THE   TARIFF  BILL   OF  1S70. 

13  the  necessities  and  wants  of  American  industiy.  These  are  ] 
not  abstractions,  but  present  imperative  realities.  As  an  ab- 
stract theory  of  political  economy,  free  trade  has  many  advo- 
cates, and  much  can  be  said  in  its  favor ;  nor  will  it  be  denied 
that  the  scholarship  of  modern  times  is  largely  00  that  side; 
that  a  large  majority  of  the  great  thinkers  of  the  present  day 
arc  leading  in  the  direction  of  what  is  called  free  trade. 

Mk.  Keu-ev.  The  gentleman  says  no  man  will  deny  that  the  tendency 
of  opinion  among  scholars  is  toward  free  trade,  I  beg  leave  to  deny  it, 
and  do  most  positively,  llie  tendency  of  opinion  among  the  scholara  o( 
the  Continent  is  very  decidedly  toward  protection.  This  is  strikingly 
illustrated  by  the  recent  publication  in  six  of  the  languages  of  the  Con- 
tinent of  the  voluminous  writings  of  Henry  C.  Carey,  and  their  adoption 
as  text-books  in  the  schools  of  Prussia,  I  think  the  gentleman's  proposi- 
tion is  true  of  the  English-speaking  people  of  the  world,  but  that  the 
preponderant  tendency  is  tiie  other  way. 

With  the  qualification  which  the  gentleman  makes,  we  do  not 
greatly  differ.  Take  the  iLnglish-spcaking  people  out  of  the 
world,  and  civilization  has  lost  at  least  half  its  strength.  I  de- 
tract nothing  from  the  great  ability  and  the  acknowledged  fame 
of  Mr.  Carey  when  I  say  that  on  this  subject  he  represents  a 
minority  among  the  financial  writers  of  our  day.  I  am  trying 
to  state  as  fairly  as  I  can  the  present  condition  of  the  question; 
and  in  doing  so  I  affirm  that  the  tendency  of  modern  thought  is 
toward  free  trade.  While  this  is  true,  it  is  equally  undeniable 
that  the  principle  of  protection  has  always  been  recognized  and 
adopted  in  some  form  or  other  by  all  nations,  and  is  to-day 
to  a  greater  or  less  extent  the  policy  of  every  civilized  gov- 
ernment. 

In  order  to  exhibit  the  relation  of  these  opposing  doctrines 
to  each  other,  I  invite  the  attention  of  the  committee  to  a  brief 
review  of  the  history  of  protection  in  the  United  States.  Our 
industry,  like  our  liberty,  has  come  up  to  its  present  strength 
through  a  long  and  desperate  struggle.  We  learned  our  indus- 
trial lessons  under  a  severe  master.  England  taught  us,  not  by 
precept  alone,  but  by  the  severest  and  sternest  examples.  The 
history  of  our  pupilage  is  full  of  interest,  for  it  gave  birth  both 
to  our  government  and  our  industry.  The  economic  doctrines 
known  as  the  Mercantile  System,  which  prevailed  throughout 
Europe  during  the  seventeenth  and  eighteenth  centuries,  gave 


\ 


THE   TARIFF  BILL   OF  1870.  523 

shape  and  character  to  the  colonial  policy  of  all  European  gov- 
ernments for  two  hundred  years.  It  is  a  mistake  to  suppose 
that  in  planting  colonies  in  the  New  World  the  nations  of  Europe 
were  moved  mainly  by  a  philanthropic  impulse  to  extend  the 
area  of  liberty  and  civilization.  Colonies  were  planted  for  the 
purpose  of  raising  up  customers  for  home  trade.  It  was  a  mat- 
ter of  business  and  speculation,  carried  on  by  joint  stock  com- 
panies for  the  benefit  of  corporations.  The  proof  of  this  may 
be  seen  in  many  pages  of  Bancroft  and  the  other  historians  of 
the  period.  While  our  Revolution  was  in  progress,  Adam  Smith, 
when  discussing  and  condemning  the  colonial  system,  declared 
that  England  had  founded  in  America  a  great  empire  *'  for  the 
sole  purpose  of  raising  up  a  nation  of  customers  who  should  be 
obliged  to  buy  from  the  shops  of  our  different  producers  all 
the  goods  with  which  these  could  supply  them."  ^ 

When  the  Colonies  had  increased  in  numbers  and  wealth,  the 
purpose  of  the  mother  country  was  disclosed  in  the  legislation 
and  regulations  by  which  the  Colonies  were  governed.  The 
British  Navigation  Laws,  beginning  in  1660,  and  extending  on- 
ward in  a  series  of  twenty-nine  separate  acts,  each  forming  a 
round  in  the  ladder  which  reached  from  the  depths  of  Colonial 
servitude  to  Bunker  Hill  and  American  independence,  form  no 
incomplete  synopsis  of  the  causes  of  our  Revolution.  The  act 
of  1660  provided  that  no  article  of  Colonial  produce  or  of  Brit- 
ish manufacture  should  be  carried  in  any  but  British  ships,  and 
that  all  the  officers  and  two  thirds  of  the  crew  engaged  in  the 
carrying  trade  should  be  British  sailors.  This  act  also  enumer- 
ated a  long  list  of  raw  materials  produced  in  the  Colonies,  and 
declared  that  none  should  be  shipped  to  any  but  British  ports. 
It  provided  that  the  Colonies  should  be  allowed  to  purchase  only 
in  British  markets  any  manufactured  article  which  England  had 
to  sell.  In  short,  the  Colonist  was  compelled  to  trade  with  Eng- 
land on  her  own  terms;  and,  whether  buying  or  selling,  the 
product  must  be  carried  only  in  British  bottoms  at  the  carrier's 
own  price.  In  addition  to  this  a  revenue  tax  of  five  per  cent  was 
imposed  on  all  Colonial  exports  and  imports. 

A  recent  writer,  in  reviewing  this  period  of  our  history,  has 
said :  "  Henceforth  they  [the  Colonists]  were  to  work  for  her ; 
to  grow  strong,  that  they  might  add  to  her  strength ;  to  grow 
rich,  that  they  might  aid  her  in  heaping  up  riches ;    but  not  to 

1  Wealth  of  Nations,  Book  IV.  Chap.  VIII. 


r 


524  THE   TARIFF  BILL   OF  1870. 

grow  either  in  strength  or  in  wealth  except  by  the  means  and  in 
the  direction  that  she  prescribed."  '  It  was  in  this  spirit  and  in 
pursuance  of  this  policy  that  a  royal  order  of  1606  permanently 
intrusted  to  the  Commissioners  of  the  Board  of  Trade  the  man- 
agement of  the  Colonies,  which  were  regarded  only  as  a  part  of 
the  interests  of  commerce. 

But  the  vigilant  "  nation  of  shopkeepers"  was  not  content 
with  watching  and  controlling  the  shipping  and  trade  of  Ameri- 
can ports.  Our  cherishing  motlicr  laid  her  heavy  hand  on  alt 
the  domestic  industries  of  the  Colonics.  Colonial  governors  were 
directed  to  discourage  all  American  attempts  at  manufacturing 
any  article  which  England  could  furnish.  In  response  to  such 
an  order,  Governor  Spotswood  of  Virginia  wrote  to  the  King 
this  apology:  "The  people  [of  Virginia],  more  of  necessity 
than  of  inclination,  attempt  to  clothe  themselves  with  their  own 

manufactures It  is  certainly  necessary  to  divert  their 

application  to  some  commodity  less  prejudicial  to  the  trade  of 
Great  Britain."  ' 

In  1701  a  government  agent  was  sent  to  examine  and  report 
whether  the  conquest  of  Canada  from  the  French  would  be 
profitable  to  England.  His  advice  to  the  King  was  in  these 
words :  "  The  English  need  not  fear  to  conquer  Canada.  Where 
the  cold  is  extreme  and  snow  lies  so  long  on  the  ground,  sheep 
will  never  thrive  so  as  to  make  the  woollen  manufactures  pos- 
sible, which  is  the  only  thing  that  can  make  a  plantation  un- 
profitable to  the  Crown. " 

But  reports  and  recommendations  were  not  sufficient  to  pre- 
vent the  Colonists,  especially  of  New  England,  from  attempting 
to  clothe  themselves.  The  power  of  Parliament  was  therefore 
invoked,  and  in  the  tenth  year  of  William  and  Mary  an  act  was 
passed  which  declared  in  its  preamble  that  "  Colonial  industry 
will  inevitably  sink  the  value  of  lands  in  England."  The  nine- 
teenth section  is  so  remarkable  that  I  will  quote  it  entire:  — 

"  After  the  ist  of  December,  1699,  no  wool  or  manufacture  made  or 
mixed  with  wool,  being  the  produce  or  manufacture  of  any  of  the  Eng- 
lish plantations  in  America,  shall  be  loaden  in  any  ship  or  vessel  upon 
any  pretence  whatsoever,  nor  loaden  upon  any  horse,  cart,  or  other  car- 
riage, to  be  carried  out  of  the  English  plantations  to  any  other  of  the  said 
plantations,  or  to  any  other  place  whatsoever."  ' 

'  Greene,  Hislorical  View  of  the  American  Revolution,  p.  38  (Boston,  1865). 

^  Bancroft,  History  of  the  United  Stales, VoL  III.  p.  107. 

*  Ibid,  Vol.  Ill-p.  10& 


1 


THE   TARIFF  BILL   OF  1870.  525 

No  Colonial  wool  or  woollen  manufactures  might  be  shipped, 
even  from  one  Colony  to  another,  and  thus  a  general  market 
was  rendered  impossible.  Every  British  sailor  was  forbidden 
by  law  to  purchase  for  his  own  use  more  than  forty  shillings* 
worth  of  woollen  goods  in  any  American  port. 

Soon  after  British  smiths  began  to  manufacture  iron,  an  in- 
quiry was  made  whether  the  Colonists  had  ventured  to  engage 
in  that  branch  of  industry.  When  it  was  found  that  they  were 
endeavoring  to  supply  themselves  with  iron  from  their  own  hills, 
the  ironmongers  of  Birmingham  sent  a  petition  to  Parliament, 
praying  "  that  the  American  people  be  subjected  to  such  re- 
strictions as  may  forever  secure  the  trade  to  this  country."  In 
1750  a  bill  was  introduced  into  Parliament  decreeing  that  every 
slitting-mill  in  America  be  demolished.  It  was  lost  in  the 
House  of  Commons  by  only  twenty-two  votes.  It  was  decreed, 
however,  that  no  new  mills  of  that  description  should  ever  be 
erected  in  America.  Ore  might  be  taken  from  the  mine,  and 
iron  in  its  rudest  forms  might  be  shipped  duty  free.  "  America 
produced  and  England  wanted  it,"  says  Mr.  Greene,  "  but  every 
process  which  could  add  to  the  value  of  the  unwrought  ore  was 
reserved  for  English  hands.  It  could  neither  be  slit  nor  rolled, 
nor  could  any  plating-forge  be  built  to  work  with  a  tilt-hammer, 
or  any  furnace  for  the  making  of  steel."  ^ 

Furs  were  plenty  in  America,  and  the  Colonists  began  to  make 
hats  for  themselves.  The  hatters  of  London,  seeing  "  their  craft 
in  danger  "  by  a  loss  of  customers,  petitioned  Parliament  for  a 
redress  of  grievances,  and  in  the  fifth  year  of  George  II.  a  stat- 
ute forbade  the  transportation  of  hats  from  one  plantation  to 
another. 

To  maintain  herself  as  mistress  of  the  sea  England  must 
increase  her  navy.  She  would  not  consent  that  British  gold 
should  leave  the  island  to  purchase  any  pine 

"  Hewn  on  Norwegian  hills  to  be  the  mast 
Of  some  great  ammiral." 

So  she  turned  to  the  free  forests  of  America,  which  God,  not 
England,  had  planted,  and  decreed  that  every  pitch-pine  tree 
two  feet  in  diameter,  and  not  in  an  enclosure,  between  the  Del- 
aware and  the  St.  Lawrence,  was  the  property  of  the  King  for 
the  use  of  his  navy,  and  might  not  be  cut  without  a  royal  license, 

^  Historical  View,  p.  47. 


J36  THE    TARIFF  BILL    OF  1S70. 

under  a  penalty  of  j^ioo.  If  the  sinful  chopper  wore  a  dtsgutse, 
he  must  receive  twenty  lashes  on  his  bare  back  besides  paying 
a  fine.  A  Surveyor-General  of  the  King's  Woods,  with  his  anny 
of  deputies  and  clerks,  came  over  the  sea  to  enforce  this  law. 

The  slave  trade  was  too  profitable  to  be  neglected  by  the 
apostles  of  the  Mercantile  S>'stcm.  Slaves  could  be  bought 
on  the  coasts  of  Africa  for  a  few  trinkets,  and  sold  to  the  Span- 
ish and  other  American  colonies  for  gold.  Hence,  in  the  treaty 
of  Utrecht,  England  secured  the  monopoly  of  the  Spanish 
trade,  and  pledged  herself  to  bring  into  the  West  Indies  not 
less  than  144,000  slaves  within  the  next  thirty  years,  and  pay 
to  Spain  on  4,000  of  them  a  duty  of  $33.33}-j  per  head.  No 
other  nation  was  to  enjoy  this  privilege.  For  the  management 
of  this  lucrative  trade  the  Royal  African  Company  was  formed. 
Philip  V.  of  Spain  took  one  quarter  of  the  stock,  *'  the  good 
Queen  Anne"  another  quarter,  and  the  remaining  half  was  re- 
served for  her  British  subjects.' 

In  a  tract  written  by  a  Britisli  merchant  in  1745  it  was  de- 
clared that  •'  the  increase  of  intelligent  white  men  in  the 
Colonies  would  injure  British  manufactures  by  introducing  com- 
petition ;  but  the  importation  of  negroes  will  keep  them  depend- 
ent upon  England." 

Whatever  did  not  enhance  the  trade  and  commerce  of  Eng- 
land was  deemed  unfit  to  be  a  part  of  the  colonial  policy.  When 
the  good  Bishop  Berkeley  proposed  to  establish  a  great  Ameri- 
can university,  he  was  answered  by  Walpole:  "That  from  the 
labor  and  luxury  of  the  plantations  great  advantages  may  ensue 
to  the  mother  country;  yet  the  advancement  of  literature  and 
the  improvement  in  arts  and  sciences  in  our  American  Colonies 
can  never  be  of  any  service  to  the  British  state." 

A  Colonial  Commissioner,  who  was  sent  to  England  to  ask  an 
increased  allowance  for  the  churches  of  Virginia,  concluded  his 
earnest  appeal  to  the  royal  Attorney- General  in  these  words: 
"' Consider,  sir,  ,  .  .  .  that  the  people  of  Virginia  have  souls  to 
save.'  'Damn  your  souls!'  was  the  ready  reply;  'make  to- 
bacco.' "  '  In  that  reply  were  embodied  both  the  piety  and  the 
policy  of  the  British  government  in  reference  to  their  American 
Colonies. 

Worse  even  than  its  effects  on  the  industry  of  the  Colonies 

was  the  influence  of  this  policy  on  political  and  commercial 

'  .See  Bancroft,  Vol  III.  pp.  131,  133.  *  Historical  View,  pp.  ij  14, 


THE   TARIFF  BILL   OF  1870.  527 

morality.  The  innumerable  arbritrary  laws  enacted  to  enforce 
it  created  a  thousand  new  crimes.  Transactions  which  the  Col- 
onists thought  necessary  to  their  welfare,  and  in  no  way  repug- 
nant to  the  moral  sense  of  good  men,  were  forbidden  under 
heavy  penalties.  They  became  a  nation  of  law-breakers.  Nine 
tenths  of  the  Colonial  merchants  were  smugglers.  Nearly  half 
of  the  signers  of  the  Declaration  of  Independence  were  bred  to 
commerce,  to  the  command  of  ships,  and  to  contraband  trade. 
John  Hancock  was  the  prince  of  contraband  traders ;  and,  with 
John  Adams  as  his  counsel,  was  on  trial  before  the  Admiralty 
Court,  in  Boston,  at  the  exact  hour  of  the  shedding  of  the  first 
blood  at  Lexington,  to  answer  for  a  $500,000  penalty  alleged 
to  have  been  incurred  as  a  smuggler.  Half  the  tonnage  of  the 
world  was  engaged  in  smuggling  or  piracy.  The  War  of  Inde- 
pendence was  a  war  against  commercial  despotism,  —  against  an 
industrial  policy  which  oppressed  and  tortured  the  industry  of 
our  fathers,  and  would  have  reduced  them  to  perpetual  vassalage 
for  the  gain  of  England. 

In  view  of  these  facts,  it  is  not  strange  that  our  fathers  should 
have  taken  early  measures,  not  only  to  free  themselves  from  this 
vassalage,  but  also  to  establish  in  our  own  land  such  industries 
as  they  deemed  indispensable  to  an  independent  nation.  The 
policy  I  have  described  prevailed  throughout  Christendom,  and 
compelled  the  new  republic,  in  self-defence,  to  adopt  measures 
for  the  protection  of  its  own  interests. 

No  one  now  fails  to  see  that  the  European  policy  of  the 
seventeenth  and  eighteenth  centuries  was  as  destructive  of 
national  industry  as  it  was  barbarous  and  oppressive.  Political 
philosophers  did  not  hesitate  to  declare  that  a  general  and 
devastating  war  among  other  nations  was  desirable  as  a  means 
of  enhancing  the  commerce  of  their  own.  The  great  Dryden, 
poet  laureate  of  England,  was  not  ashamed  in  one  of  his  noblest 
poems,  the  Annus  Mirabilis,  to  invoke  the  thunder  of  war  on 
Holland  for  the  sole  purpose  of  reducing  her  commercial  pros- 
perity. What  living  poet  would  mar  his  fame  by  such  a  coup- 
let as  this  ?  — 

"But  first  the  toils  of  war  we  must  endure, 
And  from  the  injurious  Dutch  redeem   the  seas." 

Even  as  late  as  1743  an  eminent  British  statesman  said  in  the 
House  of  Lords :    **  If  our  wealth  is  diminished,  it  is  time  to 


THE   TARIFF  BILL   OF  1S70. 


1 


niin  the  commerce  of  that  nation  which  has  driven  u5  from  the 
markets  of  the  Continent,  by  sweeping  the  seas  of  their  sbip% 
aiKl  by  blockading  their  ports." 

A  better  civilization  has  changed  all  this.  —  has  expanded  the 
area  of  commercial  freedom,  and  remanded  the  industry  of 
nations  more  and  more  to  the  operations  of  the  g<;neral  laws  of 
trade.  But  it  must  be  borne  in  mind  that  the  political  millen- 
nium, when  all  nations  belong  to  one  family,  with  no  collision 
of  interests  and  no  need  of  distinct  and  separate  policies,  has 
not  yet  come.  Until  that  happy  period  arrives,  each  govern- 
ment must  first  of  all  provide  for  its  own  people.  Protection, 
in  its  practical  meaning,  is  that  provident  care  for  the  industry 
and  development  of  our  own  country  which  will  give  our  own 
people  an  equal  chance  in  the  pursuit  of  wealth,  and  save  us 
from  the  calamity  of  being  dependent  upon  other  nations  with 
whom  we  may  any  day  be  at  war.  In  bo  far  as  the  doctrine  of 
free  trade  is  a  protest  against  the  old  system  of  oppression  and 
prohibition,  it  is  a  healthy  and  worthy  sentiment  But  under- 
lying all  theories  there  is  a  strong  and  deep  conviction  in  the 
minds  of  a  great  majority  of  our  people  in  favor  of  protecting 
American  industry. 

And  now  I  ask  gentlemen  who  advocate  free  trade  if  they 
desire  to  remove  all  tariff  duties  from  imported  goods,  I  trust 
they  do  not  mean  that.  Do  they  not  know  that  we  are  pledged, 
by  all  that  is  honest  and  patriotic,  to  raise  $i30,ooo,ocX)  in  gold, 
every  year,  to  pay  the  interest  on  our  public  debt?  and  will  they 
not  admit  the  necessity  of  raising  $20,000,000  more  a  year,  in 
gold,  as  a  sinking  fund,  to  apply  to  the  principal  of  that  debt? 
It  will  not  be  wise  statesmanship  to  raise  less  than  $  1 50,000,000 
in  gold  a  year.  If  this  be  admitted,  we  have  the  limit  to  which 
we  may  reduce  the  duties  on  imported  goods. 

The  heavy  burdens  which  the  people  have  borne  during  the 
last  eight  years  must  not  be  taken  as  proof  that  they  can  readily 
carry  all  that  now  rests  upon  them.  We  are  now  rapidly  pass- 
ing down  from  the  high  prices  of  the  war;  and  the  shrinkage 
of  values  is  every  day  making  the  weight  of  taxation  heavier 
to  carry.  Our  revenue  is  now  producing  nearly  $100,000,000 
surplus,  and  it  will  be  quite  safe  for  the  Treasury  to  reduce  the 
receipts  of  customs  duties  from  $180,000,000  to  $150,000,000, 
and  to  remit  internal  taxes  to  the  amount  of  $20,000,000  more, 
thus  making  a  total  reduction  of  $50,000,000.     This  reduction 


THE   TARIFF  BILL   OF  1870.  529 

will  afford  great  relief  to  the  people,  and  will  be  safe  for  the 
government. 

We  are  limited  in  our  tariff  legislation  by  two  things :  first, 
the  demands  of  the  Treasury,  and,  second,  the  wants  and  de- 
mands of  American  industry.  The  Treasury  we  understand, 
but  what  is  American  industry  ?  I  reject  that  narrow  view 
which  considers  industry  any  one  particular  form  of  labor.  I 
object  to  any  theory  that  treats  the  industries  of  the  country 
as  they  were  treated  in  the  last  census,  where  we  had  one  sched- 
ule for  "  agriculture,**  and  another  for  **  industry," —  as  though 
agriculture  were  not  an  industry,  as  though  commerce  and  trade 
and  transportation  were  not  industries.  American  industry  is 
labor  in  any  form  which  gives  value  to  the  raw  materials  or  ele- 
ments of  nature,  either  by  extracting  them  from  the  earth,  the 
air,  or  the  sea,  or  by  modifying  their  forms,  or  transporting  them 
through  the  channels  of  trade  to  the  markets  of  the  world,  or 
in  any  way  rendering  them  better  fitted  for  the  use  of  man.  All 
these  are  parts  of  American  industry,  and  deserve  the  careful 
and  earnest  attention  of  the  legislature  of  the  nation.  Wherever 
a  ship  ploughs  the  sea,  or  a  plough  furrows  the  field ;  wherever  a 
mine  yields  its  treasure;  wherever  a  ship  or  a  railroad  train 
carries  freight  to  market;  wherever  the  smoke  of  the  furnace 
rises,  or  the  clang  of  the  loom  resounds ;  even  in  the  lonely 
garret  where  the  seamstress  plies  her  busy  needle,  —  there  is 
industry. 

We  have  seen  within  what  limits  we  are  restrained  in  reducing 
taxation.  Let  us  next  inquire  in  what  way  this  reduction  may 
be  so  made  as  to  give  most  relief  to  industry.  And  here  let  me 
say  that,  in  my  opinion,  the  key  to  all  our  financial  problems, 
or  at  least  the  chief  factor  in  every  such  problem,  is  the  doc- 
trine of  prices.  Prices  exhibit  all  fluctuations  of  business,  and 
are  as  sure  indicators  of  panics  and  revulsions  as  the  barometer 
is  of  storms.  If  I  were  to  direct  any  student  of  finance  where 
to  begin  his  studies  I  should  refer  him  to  the  great  work  of 
Thomas  Tooke  on  the  History  of  Prices,  as  a  foundation  on 
which  to  build  the  superstructure  of  his  knowledge. 

But  to  make  the  study  of  prices  of  any  value,  we  must  ex- 
amine the  elements  which  influence  prices.  Some  of  them  lie 
beyond  our  control,  while  others  are  clearly  within  the  reach  of 
legislation.  Among  the  most  prominent  influences  that  affect 
prices  are  seasons,  crops,  the  foreign  markets,  facilities  of  trans- 

VOL.  I.  34 


530  THE   TARIFF  BILL   OF  1870. 

portation,  and  the  amount  and  character  of  taxation  and  of  tlie 
currency.  All  these  combine  to  regulate  and  determine  the 
prices  that  prevail  in  any  one  countrj.-  as  compared  with  prices  in 
others.  "The  early  and  the  latter  rain."  abundance  and  famine, 
war  and  peace  in  otlicr  nations,  and  sometimes  in  our  own,  are 
elements  beyond  our  control.  But  we  are  responsible  for  the 
statutes  which  regulate  trade,  transportation,  currency,  and  taxa- 
tion. It  is  in  our  hands  to  place  the  burdens  of  taxation  where 
they  will  impede  as  little  as  possible  the  march  of  industry,  and 
least  disturb  the  operation  of  the  great  laws  of  value,  of  supply 
and  demand. 

Now.  consider  the  recent  history  of  prices  as  related  to  in- 
dustry in  this  country.  When  the  war  began,  our  public  debt 
was  less  than  $65,000,000.  During  the  eight  years  immediately 
preceding  the  war  the  expenditures  of  the  general  government 
did  not  reach  an  average  of  $59,000,000  a  year.  Then  came  ■ 
the  war,  by  which  nearly  two  millions  of  men  were  transferred 
from  the  ranks  of  producers  to  the  army  of  consumers.  The 
war  itself  was  a  gigantic  consumer  of  wealth.  In  a  single  year 
our  expenditures  reached  the  enormous  sum  of  $1,290,000,000, 
and  when  the  last  gun  was  fired  our  war  had  cost  more  than 
$3,000,000,000,  The  immediate  effect  was  a  rapid  advance  of 
prices;  and  from  1861  onward  to  1866  the  prices  of  all  com- 
modities rose  to  a  much  higher  level  than  ever  before.  That 
was  a  period  of  great  industrial  prosperity,  such  as  a  rising 
market  always  brings;  but  it  was  an  unnatural  condition,  which 
could  not  long  continue.  Our  taxes  were  adjusted  to  the  grand 
scale  of  war  expenditures  and  war  prices. 

During  the  last  four  years  the  annual  expenditure  of  the  gov- 
ernment has  averaged  $366,000,000,  and  this  sum  has  been  an- 
nually raised  by  taxation.  No  one  will  deny  that  this  weight 
of  taxation  as  compared  with  that  before  the  war  has  been  a 
powerful  cause  of  the  increase  of  prices,  and  that  reduction  of 
taxation  will  aid  in  reducing  prices.  The  great  volume  of  our 
depreciated  currency  has  also  exercised  a  most  important  in- 
fluence on  prices;   but  this  is  not  the  occasion  to  discuss  it. 

Since  1866  we  have  been  gradually  passing  down  toward  the 
old  lev?l  of  prices.  But  what  has  been  the  effect  of  our  being 
above  it?  This,  that  ours  has  been  a  good  market  for  imports, 
but  a  poor  one  for  exports.  Many  of  the  foreign  markets  which 
we  largely  controlled  before  the  war  have  been  practically  closed 


THE   TARIFF  BILL   OF  1870.  531 

against  us.  For  some  commodities,  such  as  breadstuflfs  and 
provisions,  we  still  have  a  large  market  abroad.  But  if  you 
draw  a  line  through  the  list  of  all  our  exports,  and  place  pro- 
visions above  it  and  all  other  commodities  below  it,  you  will 
find  that,  while  the  first  class  has  somewhat  increased,  the  second 
has  greatly  fallen  off  during  the  last  four  years,  as  compared 
with  a  corresponding  period  before  the  war.  During  the  four 
years  preceding  the  war  the  total  value  of  our  domestic  manufac- 
tures exported  to  other  countries  was  $168,000,000,  an  average 
of  $42,000,000  a  year;  while  the  total  for  the  four  years  after 
the  war  was  but  $132,000,000,  an  average  of  $33,000,000  a  year. 

Take,  for  instance,  our  exports  to  those  countries  that  lie 
within  the  bounds  of  the  Western  hemisphere,  —  countries  that 
would  naturally  draw  their  principal  supplies  from  us.  It  will  be 
found  that  in  our  exports  to  all  these  countries  there  has  been 
a  great  falling  off.  I  have  obtained  from  the  official  records 
some  facts  which  strikingly  exhibit  the  decrease  of  our  trade 
with  some  of  these  countries.  For  instance,  during  the  four 
years  previous  to  the  war  the  total  value  of  our  domestic  ex- 
ports to  Canada  amounted  to  $79,000,000,  and  the  total  value 
of  imports  from  Canada  during  that  period  amounted  to  about 
$82,000,000,  an  average  on  both  sides  of  about  $20,000,000  a 
year,  the  imports  and  exports  being  nearly  equal.  But  during 
the  four  years  ending  with  June  30,  1869,  the  value  of  all  our 
exports  of  American  products  to  Canada  has  been  a  little  less 
than  $93,000,000,  while  the  value  of  our  imports  from  Canada 
has  exceeded  $150,000,000. 

Our  exports  to  the  Sandwich  Islands  during  the  four  years 
before  the  war  were  valued  at  $2,630,000,  and  our  imports 
from  the  Sandwich  Islands  at  $1,578,000.  During  the  last  four 
years  we  have  exported  to  them  $3,465,000,  and  have  pur- 
chased from  them  $5,181,000. 

To  illustrate  still  more  forcibly  the  condition  of  our  foreign 
trade,  I  will  exhibit  the  value  of  four  leading  articles  of  domes- 
tic products  exported  by  us  in  the  years  i860  and  1869,  re- 
spectively, both  being  reduced  to  a  gold  valuation. 

i86a  1869. 

Cottons 1 1 0,900,000  ^4,400,000 

Iron  machinery 5,514,000       809,000 

Manufactures  of  copper  and  brass    ....         1,664,000       444,000 

Carriages 816,060        298,000 

$18,894,060  $5,951,000 


532  THE  TARIFF  BILL   OF  1870. 

This  shows  a  falling  off  of  sixty-eight  and  one  half  per  cent. 

Now,  without  in  any  way  indorsing  the  old  theory  of  the 
balance  of  trade,  I  state  these  facts  to  show  that  the  markets 
of  neighboring  countries  are  not  buying  our  products  in  the 
same  proportion  as  before  the  war ;  and  for  the  manifest  reason, 
that  prices  here  have  been  so  high  in  comparison  with  prices  in 
other  countries  that  they  cannot  afford  to  purchase  of  us,  but 
can  more  profitably  sell  to  us  for  cash  or  bonds,  and  buy  their 
products  elsewhere.  One  of  the  most  efficient  methods  of  en- 
couraging home  industry  is  to  secure  extensive  markets,  and  to 
do  that  our  prices  must  be  so  adjusted  as  more  fully  to  open 
to  our  trade  the  markets  of  the  New  World.  This  would  afford 
a  steady  and  constant  demand  for  all  the  products  of  our  in- 
dustry, give  greater  stability  to  business,  and  restore  to  life  our 
almost  ruined  commerce. 

We  shall  find  the  great  remedy  against  these  evils  in  the  con- 
tinued decline  of  prices,  until  a  point  is  reached  where  we  can 
produce  commodities  for  export  at  such  a  rate  as  will  give  us  a 
reasonable  chance  in  the  markets  of  the  world.  When  that  time 
comes,  the  channels  of  trade  will  again  be  more  fully  opened, 
and  the  currents  will  flow  outward  as  well  as  inward.  Now,  I  do 
not  suppose,  Mr.  Chairman,  that  we  shall,  for  a  quarter  of  a 
century,  reach  the  old  level  of  prices;  for  with  $250,000,000  of 
taxes  to  be  paid  every  year,  prices  cannot  go  down  where  they 
were  when  we  paid  but  fifty  or  sixty  millions  a  year.  But  prices 
must,  nevertheless,  go  down  nearer  to  the  old  level  than  they 
now  are;  and  all  our  legislation  in  which  this  great  economic 
truth  is  not  recognized  will  be  mistaken  legislation.  Indeed,  I 
fear  that  the  downward  movement  is  too  rapid  for  safety.  Since 
this  session  began  prices  have  greatly  declined.  When  the  cost 
of  living  has  so  far  decreased  that  the  laborer  can  lay  by  as 
much  profit  at  a  smaller  rate  of  wages  as  he  can  at  present 
rates,  the  business  of  the  country  will  be  healthier,  and  the 
foreign  trade  more  abundant  and  advantageous.  The  laboring 
man  will  not  suffer  by  this,  for  it  is  not  the  gross  amount  he 
receives,  but  the  amount  he  can  save  after  paying  expenses,  that 
determines  his  prosperity.  Congress  has  already  done  much  to 
aid  in  this  reduction  of  prices. 

In  1866,  when  we  reached  the  highest  point  of  taxation,  ex- 
penditures, and  prices.  Congress  began  the  work  of  reduction. 
In  the  first  session  of  the  Thirty-ninth  Congress  we  reduced  the 


THE   TARIFF  BILL   OF  1870.  533 

internal  revenue  taxes  $6o,ocx),ooo.  In  the  second  session  we 
reduced  them  $40,ooo,ocx>  more.  In  the  first  and  second  ses- 
sions of  the  Fortieth  Congress  we  reduced  them  $70,ocx>,ooo 
more.  Thus,  in  a  space  of  two  years  and  a  half,  we  reduced 
the  burdens  of  the  country  $170,000,000.  We  not  only  re- 
duced, but  we  simplified  taxation.  It  was  simplified  in  many 
ways.  Where  taxes  were  duplicated,  complex,  and  annoying, 
they  were  simplified,  and,  as  far  as  possible,  removed  from  in- 
dustry and  imposed  upon  vices,  luxuries,  and  realized  wealth. 
Our  present  system  of  internal  taxation,  as  modified  by  recent 
legislation,  applies  almost  exclusively  to  these  three  classes  of 
objects. 

First,  we  tax  the  vices  of  the  people,  if  that  term  may  be 
properly  applied  to  some  of  their  social  habits.  The  smokes 
and  drinks  and  chews  of  the  American  people  pay  almost  one 
half  of  the  taxes  now  collected  under  our  internal  revenue  laws. 
In  the  next  place  we  tax  the  luxuries  of  the  people.  Nearly 
one  quarter  of  the  internal  revenue  taxes  are  collected  from  that 
class  of  articles.  And,  finally,  we  tax  realized  wealth  in  the 
shape  of  incomes,  sales,  and  gross  receipts.  These  three  classes 
cover  nearly  all  the  objects  of  internal  taxation ;  and  the  system, 
though  susceptible  of  improvement  and  still  greater  reduction, 
is  eminently  wise.  It  must  be  admitted  that  the  income  tax  is 
vexatious  and  inquisitorial,  and  I  hope  our  revenues  will  soon 
allow  its  abolition. 

While  we  have  made  these  heavy  reductions,  and  thus  greatly 
relieved  the  burdens  of  the  people,  there  has  been  no  substantial 
reduction  of  the  taxes  on  imported  goods.  On  all  other  things 
we  have  reduced  the  war  rates.  We  mustered  out  our  great 
army  and  navy,  sold  off  our  material  of  war,  reduced  the  heavy 
war  rates  of  internal  taxation,  and  generally  have  readjusted 
our  affairs  to  the  conditions  of  peace.  The  demand  is  now 
made  from  many  parts  of  the  country,  and  not  without  reason, 
that  the  war  tariff  shall  also  be  adjusted  to  the  conditions  of  peace. 
And  this  brings  me  to  the  bill  now  pending  before  the  House. 

The  chairman  of  the  Committee  of  Ways  and  Means,^  in  his 
clear  and  vigorous  speech  yesterday,  gave  us  an  outline  of  its 
provisions.  He  tells  us  that  it  reduces  the  rate  of  taxation  on 
six  classes  of  articles ;  namely,  sugar,  spices,  coffee,  drugs  and 
dyes,  pig-iron,  and  a  large  class  of  miscellaneous  articles.     I 

^  Mr.  Schenck. 


534  ^^^  TARIFF  BILL   OF  1S70. 

understand   him  to  say  that   the   bill   reduces  taxation  about! 
$23,000,000  in  the  aggregate.     That  would  leave  us  a  gold  rev-  I 
enue  from  imports  of  about  $160,000,000,  a  sum  sufficient  fof  a 
discharging  the  annual  interest  on  the  public  debt  and  one  peri 
cent  per  annum  of  the  principal.     Besides  this  proposed  rfe- 1 
ductlon,  my  colleague  says  there  arc  two  other  leading  objects  J 
embraced  in  the  bill:   first,  to  readjust  the  rates  on  many  arti- 
cles subject  to  duty  by  levelling  them  up  or  down,  as  the  c 
may  be,  without  materially  changing  the  average  duty;   andJ 
secondly,  by  changing  ad  valoran  to  specific  duties,  wherever  ifl 
can  safely  be  done,  in  order  to  prevent  fraud  by  undervalua- 
tion at  the  custom-house.     These,  if  I  understand  my  colleague, 
are  the  chief  objects  of  this  bill ;  and  in  the  main  they  meet  my 
full  approval.     The  general  plan  is  a  good  one,  though  on  its 
details  there  may  be  difTerence  of  opinion.  ■ 

In  addition  to  these  objects  I  desire  to  suggest  a  principle! 
that  ought  to  be  applied  to  this  and  all  our  tariff  legislation. 
So  far  as  it  can  reasonably  be  done,  the  system  of  customs  duties 
should  be  so  simplified  that  there  shall  be  as  little  duplication 
of  taxes  as  possible.  We  oujjht  to  do  for  the  tariff  laws  what 
we  did  in  1866,  1867,  and  1868  for  the  internal  revenue  laws, 
when  we  removed  taxes  from  the  separate  processes  and  im- 
posed them  mainly  on  completed  products. 

Mr.  Chairman,  though  I  shall  reserve  my  remarks  generally 
on  the  items  of  the  bill  till  we  reach  them  in  the  regular  course 
of  the  debate,  yet  I  will  take  this  occasion  to  refer  to  one  mat- 
ter here  treated  which  deeply  concerns  the  people  of  many  lo- 
calities. I  refer  to  the  duties  on  iron  in  its  various  forms.  I 
doubt  if  there  is  any  man  on  this  floor  whose  constituents  will 
be  more  seriously  affected  by  the  passage  of  this  bill  than  my 
own ;  and  I  should  not  do  justice  to  them,  nor  to  the  truth,  if 
I  did  not  exhibit  to  the  House  precisely  the  effect  of  this  bill 
upon  their  interests. 

But  let  me  say,  Mr.  Chairman,  I  refuse  to  be  the  advocate  of 
any  special  interest  as  against  the  general  interests  of  the  whole 
country.  Whatever  may  be  the  personal  or  political  conse- 
quences to  myself,  1  shall  try  to  act,  first,  for  the  good  of  all, 
and,  within  that  limitation,  for  the  industrial  interests  of  the 
districtwhich  I  represent.  But  I  desire  to  say  to  the  committee, 
and  particularly  to  my  colleague,'  that,  if  I  can  prevent  it,  I 
<  Hr.  Schenck. 


THE   TARIFF  BILL   OF  1870.  535 

shall  not  submit  to  a  considerable  reduction  of  a  few  leading 
articles  in  which  my  constituents  are  deeply  interested,  when 
many  others  of  a  similar  character  are  left  untouched,  or  the 
rate  on  them  is  increased. 

I  desire  to  call  attention  to  the  provision  of  this  bill  which 
most  concerns  the  manufacturers  of  my  own  district,  and  that 
is  the  duty  on  pig-iron.  I  believe  there  are  about  445  iron-fur- 
naces now  in  blast  in  the  United  States.  There  are  nineteen  in 
my  district  alone ;  there  are  nine  more  in  the  district  of  one  of 
my  colleagues,^  and  several  more  in  an  adjoining  district  rep- 
resented by  another  colleague.^  These  furnaces  produce,  on  an 
average,  about  7,000  tons  of  pig-iron  per  annum,  and  nearly  all 
of  them  use  raw  bituminous  coal  in  reducing  ores. 

I  believe  that  the  first  furnace  in  the  United  States  which 
reduced  ore  with  raw  bituminous  coal  was  established  in  Ma- 
honing County,  Ohio,  in  1846.  From  that  time,  year  by  year, 
with  some  interruption,*there  has  been  an  increase  in  the  num- 
ber of  furnaces.  In  the  year  1856  the  Lake  Superior  ore  was 
first  brought  down  to  the  Ohio  coal  region,  and  now  there  come 
down  the  Northern  Lakes,  as  has  been  shown  by  the  gentleman 
from  Michigan,  about  500,000  tons  of  that  ore  per  annum;  and 
more  than  one  fourth  of  the  whole  amount  is  every  year  con- 
sumed in  two  counties  of  my  Congressional  district. 

Now,  this  bill  reduces  the  duty  on  pig-iron  $2,  which  is  22^ 
per  cent  less  than  the  present  duty.  If  the  House  of  Repre- 
sentatives thinks  that  this  ought  to  be  done,  and  if  I  shall  be 
convinced  that  the  public  good  requires  it,  I  shall  not  resist  it. 
But  the  furnace-men  of  my  district  say  that  this  reduction  ought 
not  to  be  made.  They  say  that  the  Special  Commissioner  of 
the  Revenue  has  miscalculated  the  cost  of  producing  pig-iron, 
and  that  the  recommendation  of  the  Committee  of  Ways  and 
Means  will  be  injurious  to  their  interests.  When  we  reach  the 
clauses  of  the  bill  relating  to  iron  I  shall  present  to  the  House 
the  estimates  and  facts  which  they  have  furnished  me.  For  the 
present,  however,  I  desire  to  ask  the  attention  of  my  colleague  ^ 
to  a  point  in  connection  with  the  duty  on  pig-iron. 

In  the  paragraphs  of  the  bill  relating  to  iron  I  find  this  pro- 
vision :  "  On  cast-iron  steam,  gas,  or  water  pipes,  i  ^  cents  per 
pound."  Now,  I  understand  that,  next  to  pig-iron,  the  cheapest 
form  of  cast-iron  product  in  the  United  States  is  the  article  of 

1  Mr.  Ambler.  2  ^f^,  Upson.  •'  Mr.  Schenck. 


536  THE   TARIFF  BILL   OF  1870. 

large  and  heavy  water-pipes,  made  of  the  poorest  and  cheapest 
iron,  and  costing  at  the  present  time,  in  the  wholesale  market, 
from  $50  to  $60  a  ton,  —  not  a  third  more  than  pig-iron.  I  find 
that  the  Committee  of  Ways  and  Means,  instead  of  reducing 
the  duty  on  this  product,  have  raised  it  to  i-J-^J  cents  per  pound. 
which  amounts  to  $39.30  per  ton  in  gold.  Now,  if  the  product 
itself  U  worth  on  an  average  $55  a  ton  in  currency,  the  proposed 
rate  will  amount  to  85  per  cent  ad  valorctn  ;  while  on  pig-iron, 
a  product  of  vastly  more  importance,  and  involving  the  invest- 
ment of  an  enormous  amount  of  capital,  the  duty  is  reduced 
from  $9  to  $7  per  ton.  a  decrease  of  22,"^  per  cent.  I  ask  ray 
colleague  whether  he  thinks  I  ought,  in  justice  to  my  constitu- 
ents and  to  this  great  interest,  to  permit  the  duty  on  pig-iron  to 
be  thus  reduced,  and  allow  this  coarsest  and  cheapest  form  of 
cast-iron  except  pig  to  be  protected  by  duty  six  times  as  great. 
The  distinguished  gentleman  from  lowa,^  a  member  of  the  Com- 
mittee of  Ways  and  Means,  has  affirmdH  in  his  speech  that  the 
duty  on  ninety  sizes  of  iron  is  increased  by  this  bill,  while  there 
are  less  than  ten  sizes  on  which  it  is  reduced.  If  this  is  a  bill 
to  increase  generally  the  duties  on  iron,  1  shall  resist  this  de- 
crease on  the  leading  article  manufactured  by  my  constituents. 

Mr.  Schenck.  It  is  but  repeating  what  I  have  already  said  to  assure 
my  colleague  that,  if  he  is  dissatisfied  with  these  rates,  he  will  have  every 
opportunity  of  moving  to  change  the  rates  when  we  come  to  those  items, 
and  that  will  draw  out  the  reasons  pro  and  con  for  any  changes  in  the 
tahlf  upon  the  same. 

Certainly;  I  am  aware  of  that.  But  I  desire  to  say  in  this 
connection  that  I  hold  it  to  be  the  duty  of  this  committee,  and 
particularly  of  members  who  represent  iron  interests,  to  show 
us  precisely  what  this  bill  provides  on  this  whole  subject.  My 
colleague  says  that  he  will  give  us  a  chance  to  offer  amendments. 
I  desire  to  say  to  him  that,  when  the  classification  of  a  whole 
subject  has  been  changed,  it  is  not  possible  for  any  person  not 
an  expert  to  say,  without  very  careful  study,  whether  the  rate 
has  been  increased  or  decreased.  The  entire  classification  of 
some  subjects  in  this  bill  has  been  changed,  and  so  changed 
that  none  but  an  expert  can  tell  what  the  effect  will  be.  Now, 
I  agree  with  the  Committee  of  Ways  and  Means  that  it  is  a  wise 
policy  to  make  a  moderate  reduction  of  some  of  the  existing 
1  Mr.  Allison. 


I 


THE   TARIFF  BILL   OF  1870.  537 

rates  of  duty,  and  I  am  ready  to  aid  in  such  reductions ;  but  I 
shall  insist  upon  fair  dealing  all  around.  If  the  duties  on  the 
products  of  my  constituents  are  to  be  reduced,  I  shall  ask  that 
the  duties  on  the  products  of  industries  in  other  districts  shall 
likewise  be  reduced.  If  the  article  of  salt,  represented  here  by 
the  gentleman  from  Syracuse,^  on  which  the  internal  tax  in  his 
district  alone  in  1866  amounted  to  $280,000,  but  all  of  which  has 
been  removed,  and  of  course  the  producers  benefited  by  just 
that  amount,  —  if  salt,  I  say,  is  to  be  left  untouched,  then  I  shall 
insist  that  some  greater  interests  shall  be  left  untouched  also. 
The  reduction  proposed  should  be  made  in  some  equitable  way, 
in  order  that  relative  justice  may  be  done. 

Now,  Mr.  Chairman,  I  do  not  desire  to  be  misunderstood. 
The  points  that  I  have  made  in  regard  to  special  interests  in 
my  own  district  I  do  not  make  in  any  narrow  and  sectional 
spirit,  nor  for  the  sake  of  being  heard  in  my  own  district. 
After  studying  the  whole  subject  as  carefully  as  I  am  able,  I 
am  firmly  of  the  opinion  that  the  wisest  thing  which  the  pro- 
tectionists in  this  House  can  do  is  to  unite  in  a  moderate  re- 
duction of  duties  on  imported  articles.  He  is  not  a  faithful 
Representative  who  merely  votes  for  the  highest  rate  proposed 
in  order  to  show  on  the  record  that  he  voted  for  the  highest 
figure,  and  is  therefore  a  sound  protectionist.  He  is  the  wisest 
man  who  sees  the  tides  and  currents  of  public  opinion,  and 
uses  his  best  efforts  to  protect  the  industry  of  the  people 
against  sudden  collapses  and  sudden  changes.  Now,  if  I  do 
not  misunderstand  the  signs  of  the  times,  unless  we  do  this 
ourselves,  prudently  and  wisely,  we  shall  before  long  be  com- 
pelled to  submit  to  a  violent  reduction,  made  rudely  and  with- 
out discrimination,  which  will  shock,  if  not  shatter,  all  our 
protected  industries. 

There  have  been  few  occasions  when  Congress  and  the 
country  had  more  need  than  now  of  studying  the  lessons 
taught  by  the  history  of  past  legislation.  I  therefore  ask  the 
indulgence  of  the  committee  for  a  few  moments  while  I  review 
the  history  of  our  tariff  legislation.  As  I  read  that  history,  the 
warning  is  repeated  again  and  again  to  avoid  extremes. 

The  second  act  of  the  First  Congress,  called  "  the  Hamilton 
tariff"  of  1789,  continued  in  force,  with  some  additions  and 
modifications,  for  twenty-five  years.     During  that   period  the 

»  Mr.  McCarthy. 


538  THE   TARIFF  BILL   OF  1870.  -     ™ 

average  rate  of  duty  on  imported  goods  did  not  exceed  i;  per 
cent. 

The  war  of  1812  greatly  crippled  our  commerce,  and  proved 
the  necessity  of  a  more  independent  system  of  liome  manufac- 
tures. Tlic  public  debt,  whicli  in  1815  reached  $120,000,000, 
required  an  unusually  large  revenue,  and  at  the  meeting  of 
Congress  in  December  of  tliat  year.  Mr.  Madison  recommended 
an  increased  duty  on  imports,  not  only  for  the  sake  of  revenue, 
but  also  for  the  protection  and  maintenance  of  our  manufactur- 
ing industry,  which  had  received  a  powerful  impulse  during  the 
latter  part  of  the  war.  He  expressed  the  belief  that  our  manu- 
factures, with  a  protection  not  more  than  was  due  to  the  enter- 
prising citizen  whose  interests  were  at  stake,  would  become  at 
an  early  day  not  only  safe  against  occasional  competition  from 
abroad,  but  a  source  of  domestic  wealth  and  even  of  external 
commerce.  During  that  session  the  Calhoun  tariff  of  1816  was 
passed,  which  may  be  said  to  mark  the  beginning  of  discrim- 
inating protection.  The  bill  was  sustained  by  the  South,  but 
opposed  by  New  England ;  it  being  claimed  on  the  one  hand 
that  it  would  utilize  the  cotton  crop  of  the  one  section,  and  on 
the  other  that  it  would  injure  the  commerce  and  fisheries  of  the 
other  section.  The  tariff  of  1816  lasted  for  eight  years,  pro- 
ducing a  revenue  of  from  20  to  35  per  cent  of  the  importations, 
the  average  rate  being  about  25  per  cent. 

The  year  1824  marked  the  era  of  what  may  be  called  "  the 
Clay  tariff,"  which  passed  the  House  by  five  majority  and  the 
Senate  by  three.  It  encountered  its  heaviest  opposition  from 
New  England,  Massachusetts  and  New  Hampshire  together  cast- 
ing twenty-three  votes  against  and  only  three  for  the  bill.  In 
this  tariff  "  the  American  system,"  as  Mr,  Clay  named  it,  found 
its  first  complete  embodiment  The  duties  imposed  by  it  ranged 
from  34J  to  41  per  cent.  When  it  had  been  in  operation  about 
four  years  the  friends  of  protection  determined  to  push  the  rates 
up  to  a  still  higher  figure,  and  the  act  of  1828  was  passed  by  a 
close  vote,  after  an  acrimonious  debate,  with  bitter  feeling  and 
intense  excitement  on  both  sides.  Almost  immediately  after  its 
passage  the  reaction  began,  and  it  went  on  gathering  Ticad  and 
force  until,  in  1832,  resistance  to  the  tariff  assumed  the  form  of 
nullification  and  open  rebellion,  and  the  whole  country  was 
brought  to  the  verge  of  civil  war.  To  avert  such  a  calamity 
Henry  Clay,  the  great  leader  of  the  protective  movement,  him- 


I 


THE   TARIFF  BILL   OF  1870.  539 

self  came  forward  with  a  bill  reducing  the  rates  by  a  sliding 
scale,  to  operate  for  ten  years,  until  the  average  of  20  per  cent 
should  be  reached. 

Mr.  Kelley.  I  simply  want  to  suggest  that  that  movement  was  un- 
derstood at  the  time,  and  did  not  relate  to  the  tariff  at  all.  General 
Jackson  understood  it  when  he  said  it  did  not  mean  tariff,  but  it  meant 
slavery  and  disunion,  and  the  tariff  was  only  a  pretext. 

It  is  true  that  other  questions  were  involved  in  the  issue,  but 
the  gentleman  will  find  it  unsafe  to  apply  the  test  of  history  to 
his  assertions.  The  contest  was  concerning  the  tariff,  particu- 
larly the  act  of  1828.  It  was  that  act  which  South  Carolina 
nullified,  and  refused  to  allow  to  be  executed  within  her  bor- 
ders. When  Mr.  Clay's  compromise  tariff  passed.  South  Caro- 
lina revoked  her  acts  of  nullification,  and  came  out  of  the  contest 
with  flying  colors.  The  compromise  tariff  of  Mr.  Clay  prevented 
civil  war.  It  went  into  operation  in  1833,  but  the  free-traders 
pushed  their  victory  so  far  that,  in  1840,  a  great  reaction  came 
from  the  other  side,  and  they  were  in  turn  driven  from  power, 
and  the  tariff  of  1842  was  adopted,  by  which  the  rate  of  duty 
was  raised,  and  fixed  at  an  average  of  33  per  cent. 

The  free-trade  party  having  again  come  into  power,  a  heavy 
reduction  of  the  tariff  was  made  in  1846,  and  the  rate  pushed 
down  to  an  average  of  24  J^  per  cent.  This  act  continued  in 
force  without  material  change  during  a  period  of  nine  years, 
when  the  Democratic  party,  flushed  with  success  in  the  Presi- 
dential election  of  1856,  determined  to  push  their  free- trade 
policy  to  a  still  greater  extreme,  and  in  the  tariff  act  of  1857 
they  reduced  the  rate  of  duty  to  20^  per  cent,  a  lower  rate 
than  it  had  reached  in  forty  years.  This  law  so  crippled  the 
revenue  of  the  government  that  in  i860  the  Treasury  was 
empty,  and  our  credit  so  poor  that  the  Secretary  paid  twelve 
per  cent  interest  for  loans  which,  even  at  that  rate,  he  found 
it  difficult  to  negotiate. 

As  might  be  expected,  there  was  another  reaction  in  favor  of 
higher  rates,  and  the  year  1861  marked  a  new  era  in  the  history 
of  the  tariff.  Now  the  rates  were  again  raised.  From  the  2d 
of  March,  1861,  to  the  present  time,  there  have  been  thirteen 
separate  tariff  acts  and  resolutions,  all  of  which  have  more 
or  less  increased  the  rate  of  duties,  and  it  now  averages  about 
47^  per  cent  on  dutiable  articles,  and  over  41  per  cent  on 
all  our  imports,  both  dutiable  and  free.     That  these  acts  were 


540  THE   TARIFF  BILL   OF  1870. 

made  necessary  by  the  war,  few  will  venture  to  deny.  It  is 
also  undeniable  that  the  heavy  internal  taxes  imposed  upon 
manufacturing  industries  neutralized  the  effect  of  protective 
duties,  and  made  an  increase  of  the  tariff  necessary  as  a  meas- 
ure of  compensating  protection.  But,  as  I  have  already  shown, 
the  heaviest  burdens  of  internal  taxes  have  been  removed  from 
manufactures,  and  a  demand  that  some  corresponding  reduc- 
tion in  the  tariff  rates  shall  be  made  is  coming  up  from  all 
quarters  of  the  country.  The  signs  are  unmistakable  that  a 
strong  reaction  is  setting  in  against  the  prevailing  rates,  and 
he  is  not  a  wise  legislator  who  shuts  his  eyes  to  the  facts  of  the 
situation. 

The  historical  review  that  I  have  given  strongly  exhibits  the 
fact  that  the  industry  of  the  country  during  the  last  half-century 
has  been  repeatedly  tossed  up  and  down  between  two  extremes 
of  policy,  and  the  country  has  suffered  great  loss  by  each  vio- 
lent change. 

The  great  want  of  industry  is  a  stable  policy ;  and  it  is  a  sig- 
nificant comment  on  the  character  of  our  legislation,  that  Con- 
gress has  become  a  terror  to  the  business  men  of  the  country. 
This  very  day  the  great  industries  of  the  nation  are  standing 
still,  half  paralyzed  at  the  uncertainty  which  hangs  over  our 
proceedings  here.  A  distinguished  citizen  of  my  own  district 
has  lately  written  me  this  significant  sentence :  **  If  the  laws  of 
God  and  nature  were  as  vacillating  and  uncertain  as  the  laws  of 
Congress  in  regard  to  the  business  of  its  people,  the  universe 
would  soon  fall  into  chaos." 

Mr.  Chairman,  I  have  already  said  that  we  see  in  many  parts 
of  the  country  a  desire  to  reduce  our  tariff  rates.  Turning  aside 
from  the  merits  of  the  question  itself,  I  ask  the  attention  of  the 
committee  to  the  possibilities  of  the  case.  Consider  the  forces 
and  elements  now  operating  upon  the  question,  and  ask  your- 
selves what  is  likely  to  be  the  result.  In  this  House  there  are 
about  sixty  Democrats,  a  great  majority  of  whom  are  declared 
free-traders. 

Mr.  Wood.     I  beg  the  gentleman's  pardon ;  I  do  not  know  a  single 
free-trader,  as  such,  on  this  side  of  the  House. 
Mr.  Cox.     Here  is  one. 
Mr.  Mungen.     Here  is  another. 

**  Ex  pede  Herculcm." 


THE   TARIFF  BILL   OF  1870.  541 

Mr.  Wood.  I  am  in  favor  of  a  tariff  for  revenue,  and  not  for  absolute 
free  trade,  and  I  believe  that  is  the  position  occupied  by  a  majority  of 
the  members  on  this  side  of  the  House. 

If  the  gentlemen  on  the  other  side  are  not  nearly  all  free- 
traders, they  have  misrepresented  themselves ;  for  of  the  score 
that  have  made  speeches  on  this  subject  almost  every  one  has 
denounced  the  tariff  as  robbery  or  fraud. 

So  much  for  that  side  of  the  House.  How  is  it  on  this? 
West  of  Ohio,  north  of  Arkansas,  and  east  of  the  Rocky  Moun- 
tains, there  are  nine  States  represented  here,  all  of  them  Repub- 
lican, some  of  them  overwhelmingly  Republican  in  politics. 
Yet,  if  I  understand  correctly  the  opinions  of  the  fifly-seven 
Democratic  and  Republican  Representatives  in  this  House  from 
those  nine  States,  there  are  at  least  fifty  of  them  who  are  in 
favor  of  some  reduction  in  the  present  rates  of  our  tariff. 

I  do  not  think  there  is  any  agreement  among  these  gentlemen 
what  they  will  reduce  or  how  much  they  will  reduce,  and  I  say 
nothing  now  about  the  justice  or  injustice,  the  wisdom  or  folly, 
of  their  opinions.  Many  of  them  from  the  Northwest,  like  the 
gentleman  from  Minnesota,^  affirm  that  the  duties  as  at  present 
adjusted  are  oppressive  to  the  farming  community,  and  give 
great  and  undue  advantage  to  those  engaged  in  manufactures. 
Many  of  them  tell  us  there  is  a  feeling  of  deep  discontent  and 
growing  hostility  to  the  tariff  among  agriculturists.  Many  of 
them,  like  the  gentleman  from  Minnesota,  disavow  any  sympa- 
thy whatever  with  free  trade  or  free-traders,  and  have  no  more 
sympathy  with  the  Democratic  party  now  than  they  had  during 
the  war.  Many  of  them  tell  us  that,  unless  we  submit  to  a 
reasonable  reduction  of  tariff  duties,  the  reaction  now  in  pro- 
gress will  soon  seriously  shatter  our  whole  protective  system.  I 
invoke  the  earnest  attention  of  the  House  to  these  facts  showing 
our  situation. 

I  will  not  indulge  in  crimination  or  recrimination.  I  will  take 
no  part  in  the  violent  denunciation  which  we  have  heard  in  the 
progress  of  this  debate.  I  do  not  believe,  on  the  one  hand,  that 
the  manufacturers  are  corruptly  striving  for  their  own  gain  as 
against  the  public  good  ;  nor,  on  the  other,  that  the  free-traders 
have  been  bought  with  British  gold,  and  are  wilfully  and  know- 
ingly the  enemies  of  their  country.  I  stand  now  where  I  have 
always  stood  since  I  have  been  a  member  of  this  House.     I  take 

1  Mr.  Wilkinson. 


542  THE   TARIFF  BILL   OF  1870. 

the  liberty  of  quoting  from  the  Congressional  Globe  of  1866  tlie 
following  remarks  which  I  then  made  on  tlie  subject  of  the  tariff. 
'■  We  have  seen  that  one  extreme  school  of  economists  would  plate 
the  price  of  all  manufactured  articles  in  the  hands  of  foreign  producers, 
by  rendering  it  impossible  for  our  manufacturers  lo  compete  with  them  ; 
while  the  other  extreme  school,  by  making  it  impossible  for  the  foreigner 
lo  sell  his  competing  wares  in  our  market,  would  leave  no  check  upon 
ihe  prices  which  our  manufacturers  might  fix  upon  their  products.  I 
hold,  therefore,  tliat  a  properly  adjusted  competition  between  home  and 
foreign  products  is  the  best  gauge  by  which  to  regulate  international 
trade.  Duties  should  be  so  high  thai  our  manufacturers  can  fairly  com- 
pete with  the  foreign  product,  but  not  so  high  as  to  enable  them  to  drive 
out  the  foreign  article,  enjoy  a  monopoly  of  the  trade,  and  regulate  the 
price  as  they  please.  To  this  extent  I  am  a  protectionist.  If  our 
government  pursues  this  line  of  policy  steadily,  we  shall,  year  by  year, 
approach  more  nearly  lo  the  basis  of  free  trade,  because  we  shall  be  more 
nearly  able  to  compete  with  other  nations  on  equal  terms.  I  am  for  a 
protection  which  leads  to  ultimate  free  trade.  I  am  for  thai  free  trade 
which  can  be  achieved  only  through  protection."  ' 

Mr.  Chairman,  examining  thus  the  possibilities  of  the  situa- 
tion, I  believe  that  the  true  course  for  the  friends  of  protection 
to  pursue  is  to  reduce  the  rates  on  imports  wherever  we  can 
justly  and  safely  do  so,  and,  accepting  neither  of  the  extreme 
doctrines  urged  on  this  floor,  endeavor  to  establish  a  stable 
policy  that  will  commend  itself  to  all  patriotic  and  thoughtful 
people. 

I  know  that  my  colleague  *  thinks  that  general  debate  on  this 
subject  is  of  little  consequence,  but  that  the  true  discussion  is 
on  the  details  of  the  bill.  I  grant  it ;  and  I  know  that,  when  we 
come  to  consider  the  separate  items  of  the  bill,  he  will  find  that 
men  declaring  themselves  free-traders  will  vote  for  a  high  rate 
of  duty  on  some  articles  in  which  their  districts  are  interested, 
and  for  a  very  low  duty  for  other  things  in  which  their  districts 
are  not  interested.  This  was  my  own  experience  on  the  Com- 
mittee of  Ways  and  Means.  But  I  have  expressed  in  this  gen- 
eral and  desultory  way  the  views  which  I  shall  carry  into  the 
discussion ;  and  I  believe  that  they  are  the  views  which  will  best 
subserve  both  the  interests  of  the  Treasury  and  the  general 
interests  of  American  industry. 

*  See  anfe,  p.  zo8.  *  Hr.  Schenck. 


I 


CURRENCY   AND  THE   BANKS. 

SPEECH  DELIVERED   IN  THE  HOUSE  OF  REPRESENTATIVES, 

June  7,  1870. 


From  1868  to  1870,  as  from  1866  to  1868,  the  new  financial  heresies 
continued  to  make  headway.  In  its  national  convention  for  1868  the 
Democratic  party  declared  that,  when  the  obligations  of  the  government 
did  not  expressly  state  upon  their  face,  or  the  law  under  wKich  they  were 
issued  did  not  provide,  that  they  should  be  paid  in  coin,  they  ought  to 
be  paid  in  the  lawful  money  of  the  United  States,  —  that  is,  in  green- 
backs ;  and  it  also  demanded  the  taxation  of  government  bonds  and 
other  securities  at  their  face  value.  The  same  year  the  Republican  party 
did,  indeed,  denounce  all  forms  of  repudiation,  and  declare  that  the 
public  indebtedness  should  be  paid  in  the  utmost  good  faith  to  all  cred- 
itors according  to  the  spirit  as  well  as  the  letter  of  the  law ;  but  the  plat- 
form was  silent  upon  resumption,  and  a  great  many  Republicans  were 
as  crazy  upon  financial  subjects  as  Democrats  could  be.  A  demand 
for  "  money  enough  to  meet  the  demands  of  trade  "  sprung  up,  and 
grew  louder  and  louder.  Inflation  of  the  currency  became  a  mania, 
and  was  happily  characterized  by  Mr.  Garfield  in  some  remarks  made  in 
the  House,  February  28,  1867  •  — 

"  Mr.  Speaker,  in  one  hour  this  House  will  dispose  of  one  of  the  most 
important  measures  of  the  session  next  to  reconstruction,  and  I  wish  to 
say  to  the  distinguished  and  venerable  gentleman  from  Pennsylvania,* 
that  I  am  willing  to  go  to  his  school  and  learn  of  him,  but  I  appeal  from 
his  teachings  of  to-day  to  his  teachings  of  three  years  ago. 

"When  the  bill  was  brought  forward  in  the  House,  in  1862,  the  gen- 
tleman is  recorded  in  the  Globe  as  opening  his  speech  as  follows  :  *  Mr. 
Speaker,  this  bill  is  a  matter  of  necessity,  and  not  of  choice.  I  hope  this 
issue  of  $150,000,000  will  be  the  last.  I  should  be  grieved  to  see  any 
further  expansion  of  the  currency.* 

"That  was  in  the  early  spring  of  1862,  when  but  |6o,ooo,ooo  of 
United  States  notes  had  been  issued,  and  when  he  was  proposing  to  issue 

*  Mr.  Stevens. 


S44  CURRENCY  AND  THE  BANKS.  fl 

8150,000,000  more.    That  1150,000,000  was  issued,  and  ^loo.ooo.ooffd 

more,  and  8400,000,000  more,  deluge  on  deluge,  until  the  enormous  toul  J 
has  swelled  to  %\  ,100,000,000  !  It  is  now  nearly  $900,000,000,  and  yetfl 
the  gentleman  talks  of  wanting  more.  I  know  of  nothing  which  beitetfl 
illustrates  the  mania  for  paper  money  than  'Rum's  Maniac'  as  pOP  fl 
traycd  by  Dr.  Nott  The  poor  victim,  whom  rum  had  ruined  in  famflj"  J 
and  property,  was  in  the  mad-house,  and  in  his  insane  ravings  called  on  J 
all  the  friends  of  his  early  years  to  save  him ;  but  the  refrain  of  every  1 
prayer  was,  —  I 

'  Will  no  one  pity,  no  one  come?  I 

O  give  me  rum  I    O  give  me  rum  f '  I 

"The  vast  volume  of  irredeemable  paper  moneynow  afloat  has  pbyed  I 
the  chief  part  in  dbturbing  all  the  norma!  relations  of  business.  Bua- 
ness  men  and  legislators  have  taken  paper  money  in  such  overwhelming 
doses  that  they  arc  crared,  and,  like  tlie  lotus-eaters,  wish  to  return  no 
more  to  solid  values.  Forgetting  the  past,  forgetting  their  own  teachings, 
their  votes,  and  their  records  of  a  year  ago,  they  join  in  the  crazy  cry, 
'  Paper  money  I     Oh,  give  us  more  paper  money  ! ' 

"  Why,  sir,  at  the  last  session  but  six  memljers  of  the  House  wee 
found  to  vote  against  a  resolution  that  we  ought  to  return  to  specie  pay- 
ments, and  to  ilo  it  we  must  contract  the  cvirrency.  Thai  was  the  al- 
most un.inimoAi';  opinion  of  this  House  at  the  bf pinning  of  the  b>t  session. 
We  commenced  the  work  of  contraction  cautiously  and  slowly,  but  when 
these  gentlemen  found  it  pressed  them  only  a  little,  they  cry  out,  like  the 
maniac,  '  Press  us  no  more  ;  give  us  more  paper  money ! '  ,  A  man's 
hand  is  hopelessly  shattered  ;  it  must  be  amputated  or  he  dies  ;  but  the 
moment  the  surgeon's  knife  touches  the  skin  he  blubbers  like  a  boy,  and 
cries,  '  Don't  cut  it !  take  away  the  knife  I  the  natural  laws  of  circulation 
will  amputate  it  by  and  by.'  Yes,  gangrene  and  death  will  soon  settle  the 
difficulty,  and  save  him  from  the  pain  of  the  knife." 

For  the  time  men  of  sound  views  abandoned  an  immediate  return  to 
coin  payments,  as  well  as  all  measures  of  direct  preparation  for  it,  and 
hoped  for  nothing  more  than  to  hold  the  rising  tides  of  tinanciat  folly  and 
dishonor  in  check.  The  House  of  Tiepresentatives,  which  responded 
more  fully  than  the  Senate  to  popular  feeling,  adopted  this  resolution, 
February  21,  1870  :  "Resolved,  That,  in  the  opinion  of  the  House,  the 
business  interests  of  the  country  require  an  increase  in  the  volume  of 
circulating  currency,  and  the  Committee  on  Banking  and  Currency  are 
instructed  to  report  to  the  House,  at  as  early  a  day  as  practicable,  a  bill 
increasing  the  currency  to  the  amount  of  at  least  (50,000,000." 

At  the  opening  of  the  Forty-first  Congress,  Mr.  Garfield  was  made 
Chairman  of  the  Committee  on  Banking  and  Currency.  His  aim  now 
was  to  use  the  full  power  of  his  position,  as  well  as  his  personal  force  and 
influence,  to  prevent  the  enactment  of  measures  that  would  impair  the 


CURRENCY  AND   THE  BANKS.  545 

public  credit  or  inflict  injury  upon  the  country.  Indirectly,  however,  he 
was  able  to  render  the  treasury  and  the  country  a  substantial  service  in 
carrying  through  a  bill,  introduced  as  a  reply  to  the  resolution  of  Feb- 
ruary 21,  authorizing  an  enlargement  of  the  national  bank  circulation,  as 
well  as  a  redistribution  of  a  portion  of  the  old  circulation.  From  the 
day  that  this  measure  was  introduced  (April  27),  with  the  title,  "A  Bill 
to  increase  Banking  Facilities,  and  for  other  Purposes,"  to  the  day  of  its 
passage  and  approval  (July  12),  with  the  title,  "An  Act  to  provide  for 
the  Redemption  of  the  Three  Per  Cent  Temporary  Loan  Certificates, 
and  for  an  Increase  of  National  Bank  Notes,"  Mr.  Garfield  made,  besides 
remarks  and  a  lengthy  statement  on  presenting  a  conference  committee's 
report,  three  speeches,  at  as  many  different  stages  in  the  progress  of  the 
measure.  Because  this  was  more  peculiarly  his  own  than  any  other 
financial  measures  with  which  his  name  is  connected,  as  well  as  because 
they  cover  all  phases  of  the  pending  question,  and  a  vast  region  of  finan- 
cial discussion  lying  outside  of  that  question,  these  speeches  will  be  here 
given,  one  of  them  somewhat  abridged.  The  first  speech  was  upon  the 
bill  as  reported  firom  the  committee,  and  was  as  follows. 


''Credit  is  the  vital  air  of  the  system  of  modem  commerce.    It  has  done  more  a  thousand 
times  to  enrich  nations  than  all  the  mines  of  all  the  world.*'  —  Daniel  Webster. 

MR.  SPEAKER,  —  I  trust  I  shall  have  at  least  the  sympa- 
thy of  the  House  in  an  attempt  to  discuss  so  difficult  and 
delicate  a  subject  as  the  currency  of  the  country;  and  espe- 
cially so  now,  when  probably  more  than  at  any  other  time  in  the 
history  of  the  country  there  is  a  chaos  of  opinions  and  a  war 
of  theories  on  the  whole  subject  of  finance.  If  each  member 
should  write  down  in  brief  what  he  thinks  ought  to  be  done  with 
the  currency  of  the  country,  and  all  the  opinions  were  col- 
lated, it  would  make  a  most  singular  collection  of  contradic- 
tions. I  do  not  say  this  as  a  reflection  upon  the  House,  or  any 
member  of  it,  but  to  exhibit  the  singular  state  of  opinion,  not 
only  here,  but  throughout  the  country.  After  some  reflection, 
I  do  not  believe  it  possible  that  any  comprehensive  financial 
measure  can  at  this  time  receive  the  general  assent  of  the 
whole  country,  or  of  any  considerable  majority  in  this  House. 
Having  my  own  cherished  and  decided  opinions,  and  having 
frequently  announced  them  here,  I  find  it  impossible  to  realize 
my  own  ideas  in  any  bill  which  can  have  the  least  possible 
chance   of  passing  in  this   House ;    and,  so  far  as  I  know,  the 

VOL.  I.  35 


546  CURRENCY  AND   THE  BANKS. 

same  may  be  said  of  every  other  member  of  the  House.  Under 
circumstances  like  these  it  became  the  duty  of  the  Committee 
on  Banking  and  Currency  to  prepare  a  bill  to  meet,  as  far  as 
possible,  the  manifest  demands  of  the  country.  And  in  at- 
tempting to  do  this  we  labored  under  all  the  difficulties  that  I 
have  named,  with  the  additional  difficulties  of  instructions  from 
the  House,  and  of  a  resolution  from  the  other  branch  of  Con- 
gress expressing  opinions  diametrically  opposite  to  those  of  the 
House. 

Before  entering  upon  the  consideration  of  the  bill  itself,  I  ask 
the  indulgence  of  the  House  while  I  state  a  few  general  propo- 
sitions touching  the  subject  of  trade  and  its  instruments.  A 
few  simple  principles  form  the  foundation  on  which  rests  the 
whole  superstructure  of  money,  currency,  and  trade.  They 
may  be  thus  briefly  stated. 

First.  Money,  which  is  a  universal  measure  of  value  and  a 
medium  of  exchange,  must  not  be  confounded  with  credit  cur- 
rency in  any  of  its  forms.  Nothing  is  really  money  that  does 
not  of  itself  possess  the  full  value  which  it  professes  on  its  face  to 
possess.  Length  can  be  measured  only  by  a  standard  which  in 
itself  possesses  length.  V\'ci<;ht  can  be  measured  only  by  a  stan- 
dard, defined  and  recognized,  which  in  itself  possesses  weight. 
So.  als(^  value  can  be  measured  only  by  that  which  in  itself  pos- 
sesses a  definite  and  known  value.  The  precious  metals,  coined 
and  stamped,  form  the  money  of  the  world,  because  when  thrown 
into  the  melting-pot  and  cast  into  bars  they  w^ill  sell  in  the  mar- 
ket as  metal  for  the  same  amount  that  they  will  pass  for  in  the 
market  as  coined  money.  The  coining  and  stamping  are  but  a 
certificate  by  the  government  of  the  quantity  and  fineness  of 
the  metal  stamped.  The  coining  certifies  to  the  value,  but 
neitlier  creates  it  nor  adds  to  it. 

Second.  Paper  currency  when  convertible  into  coin  at  the 
will  of  the  holder,  though  not  in  itself  money,  is  nevertheless 
an  order  for  money,  a  title  to  the  amount  of  money  promised  on 
its  face ;  and  so  long  as  there  is  perfect  confidence  that  it  is  a 
good  title  for  its  full  amount,  it  can  be  used  as  money  in  the 
payment  of  debts.  Being  lighter  and  more  easily  carried,  it  is 
for  many  purposes  more  convenient  than  money,  and  has  be- 
come an  indispensable  substitute  for  money  throughout  all  civil- 
ized countries.  One  quality  which  it  must  possess,  and  without 
which  it  loses  its  title  to  be  called  money,  is  that  the  promise 


CURRENCY  AND   THE  BANKS.  $47 

written  on  its  face  must  be  good,  and  kept  good.  The  declara- 
tion on  its  face  must  be  the  truth,  the  whole  truth,  and  nothing 
but  the  truth.  If  the  promise  has  no  value,'  the  note  itself  is 
worthless.  If  the  promise  affords  any  opportunity  for  doubt, 
uncertainty,  or  delay,  the  note  represents  a  vague  uncertainty, 
and  its  value  is  measured  only  by  the  remaining  faith  in  the  final 
redemption  of  the  promise. 

Third.  Certificates  of  credit,  under  whatever  form,  are  among 
the  most  efficient  instruments  of  trade.  The  most  common 
form  of  such  certificates  is  the  check  or  draft.  The  bank  is  the 
institution  through  which  the  check  becomes  so  powerful  an 
instrument  of  exchange.  The  check  is  comparatively  a  mod- 
em invention,  whose  functions  and  importance  are  not  yet  fully 
recognized.  It  may  represent  a  deposit  of  coin  or  of  paper 
currency,  convertible  or  inconvertible ;  or  it  may,  as  is  more  fre- 
quently the  case,  represent  merely  a  credit,  secured  by  property 
in  some  form,  but  not  by  money.  The  check  is  not  money ; 
yet,  for  the  time  being,  it  performs  all  the  functions  of  money 
in  the  payment  of  debts.  No  greater  mistake  can  be  made 
than  to  suppose  that  the  effective  value  of  currency  is  not 
directly  increased  by  the  whole  amount  of  checks  in  circula- 
tion. A  recent  financial  writer  says :  "  Considering  the  bank 
note  and  check,  both  are  promises  to  pay,  both  orders  for 
money  and  payable  on  demand,  and  both,  when  the  holder  has 
faith  in  the  promise,  are  received  in  payment  for  debts."  Bon- 
amy  Price,  the  latest  English  authority  on  this  subject,  con- 
cludes one  of  his  most  powerful  chapters  on  currency  with  these 
words :  — 

**  For  my  part,  let  others  dwell  on  notes,  the  numbers  of  their  circu- 
lation, their  tendency  to  increase  or  diminish,  their  stability  and  their 
solvency,  —  let  me  rather  hear  of  the  movements  and  operations  of  the 
check.  The  rising  flood  of  checks,  as  it  is  a  sign  of  the  activity,  so  also 
is  it  the  usual  mark  of  the  profitableness  of  business ;  their  ebb  too 
surely  announces  the  drooping  resources  of  commerce.  Great  is  the 
note,  I  admit ;  but  far  greater  yet  is  the  check."  ^ 

If  any  one  doubts  the  correctness  of  this  position,  I  call  his 
attention  to  the  remarkable  fact  that  the  bank-note  circulation 
of  Great  Britain  is  no  greater  to-day  than  it  was  thirty-five 
years  ago.  By  Sir  Robert  PeeFs  Currency  Act  of  1844,  the  in- 
crease of  bank-notes  was  practically  prohibited.     In  that  year 

1  Principles  of  Currency,  (Oxford  and  London,  1869,)  p.  95. 


CURRENCY  AND   THE  BANKS. 

tbe  total  volume  of  bank-notes  in  the  United  Kingdom  was 
jf 39,297, 1 80 ;  in  Januafy,  1867,  it  was  but  £38.092,950.  Com- 
menting on  this  remarkable  fact,  R.  H.  Patterson,  a  Scotch 
writer,  says  in  a  recent  work,  tliat  though  the  note  circulation 
has  remained  stationary  for  more  than  a  quarter  of  a  century, 
yet  within  that  time  the  trade  of  Engiand  has  more  than  trebled ; 
her  exports  and  imports  have  increased  from  ;£i  30,000,000  to 
j(r420,ooo,ooo. 

"  The  bills,  or  comrnerctal  currency  by  which  our  trade  is  carried  00, 
hjrre  simultaneously  doubled  in  amount,  and  our  banking  deposits  hare 
increased  fivefold,  having  risen  from  ;£8o,ooo,ooo  to  ^400,000,000, 

"  The  means  by  which  this  progress  has  been  accomplished  have  been 
the  extension  of  banking,  the  increased  use  of  commercial  currency 
(bills),  and,  most  of  all,  the  development  of  the  check  system  and  ibe 
establishment  of  the  cteanng- house.  In  truth,  money,  whether  in  the  fona 
of  bank-notes  or  coin,  hardly  plays  any  part  in  the  processes  by  which 
our  rapidly  expanding  trade  is  facilitated,  or  even  in  the  transactions  c(  - 
banking.  Startling  as  the  fact  may  seem,  not  more  than  fire  per  cent  of 
banking  transactions  are  made  either  in  notes  or  coin.  Of  the  innumera- 
ble payments  into  banks,  constituting  dejKwits,  and  of  the  equally  nu- 
merous drafts  upon  hanks,  or  demands  for  repayment  of  those  depoati, 
ninety-five  per  cent  (as  has  already  been  shown)  are  in  the  form  of  checks 

and  bills,  only  five  per  cent  being  in  money,  *.  e.  notes  or  coin 

Money,  whether  bank-notes  or  coin,  now  constitutes  merely  the  retail 
currency  of  the  country,  —  the  medium  in  which  we  pay  for  the  smaS 
wants  of  the  day ;  for  our  dinner  and  cabs,  our  railway  ticket,  and  petty 
purchases  in  shopping.  All  else  is  done  by  means  of  checks  and  bills. 
These  checks  and  bills  are  the  great  moving  power,  —  the  form  in  which 
alt  the  larger  purchases  of  goods  and  property  are  made  \  notes  and  coin 
being  only  needed  for  petty  payments."  ' 

For  the  year  ending  October,  1869,  the  total  exchanges  through 
the  New  York  clearing-house  amounted  to  $37,407,000,000,  and 
the  cash  balances  were  about  $1,120,000,000,  being  but  little 
more  than  three  per  cent  of  the  total  transactions.  And  even 
this  small  ratio  of  balances  is  paid  mainly  by  checks  and  by  a 
transfer  of  accounts.  Every  year  witnesses  some  new  device 
by  which  the  use  of  actual  money  is  economized. 

I  would  not  for  a  moment  lose  sight  of  the  first  great  neces- 
sity of  all  exchanges,  that  they  be  measured  by  real  money,  the 
recognized  money  of  the  world ;  nor  of  that  other  necessity  next 
in  importance,  that  bank-notes  or  Treasury  notes  shall  represent 
'  Sdence  of  Finance,  {Edinburgh  and  London,  tS6S,)  pp-  jfr-jS. 


CURRENCY  AND   THE  BANKS.  549 

real  money,  shall  be  of  uniform  value  throughout  the  country, 
and  shall  be  sufficient  in  amount  to  effect  all  those  exchanges 
in  which  paper  money  is  actually  used.  I  would  keep  constantly 
in  view  both  these  important  factors.  But  that  is  a  superficial 
and  incomplete  plan  of  legislation  which  does  not  include  in  its 
provisions  for  the  safe  and  prompt  transaction  of  business  those 
facilities  which  modern  civilization  has  devised,  and  which  have 
so  largely  superseded  the  use  of  both  coin  and  paper  money. 

The  bank  has  become  the  indispensable  agent  and  instrument 
of  trade  throughout  the  civilized  world,  and  not  less  in  specie- 
paying  countries  than  in  countries  cursed  by  inconvertible  cur- 
rency. Besides  its  function  of  issuing  circulating  notes,  it 
serves  as  a  clearing-house  for  the  transactions  of  its  custom- 
ers. It  brings  the  buyer  and  seller  together,  and  enables  them 
to  complete  their  exchanges.  It  brings  debtors  and  creditors 
together,  and  enables  them  to  adjust  their  accounts.  It  brings 
the  capitalist  and  the  tradesman  together,  and  offers  facilities 
for  credit  far  beyond  the  mere  issue  of  its  notes.  It  collects  the 
thousand  little  hoards  of  unemployed  money,  and  through  loans 
and  discounts  converts  them  into  active  capital.  In  the  lan- 
guage of  Professor  Bowen,  in  his  work  on  Political  Economy, 
just  published,  — 

"  A  bank  is  a  reservoir  which  collects  in  amounts  available  for  use  the 
raindrops  which  would  otherwise  be  lost  by  dispersion ;  and  it  brings 
borrowers  and  lenders  together,  knowing  that  their  respective  wants  can 
be  supplied  by  concert  and  previous  arrangement.  The  two  legitimate 
sources  from  which  the  bank  can  make  loans  are  its  capital  and  depos- 
its  But   the  question  will  be  asked.  How  can  the  bank  safely 

make  any  use  of  the  sums  thus  deposited,  seeing  that  any  number  of 
them  are  liable  to  be  withdrawn  at  any  moment  ?  The  answer  is  easy. 
The  bank  could  not  safely  use  the  capital  if  it  had  but  one  depositor ;  but 
having  many  —  hundreds,  perhaps  —  it  can  safely  employ  the  whole  aver- 
age amount  of  the  deposits  in  discounting  notes  for  its  own  profit,  as  ex- 
perience shows  that  their  average  amount  continues  with  little  fluctuation, 
the  daily  withdrawals  by  one  set  being  constantly  made  up  by  fresh  de- 
posits from  another  set."  ^ 

I  find  there  are  still  those  who  deny  the  doctrine  that  bank 
deposits  form  an  effective  addition  to  the  circulation.  But  let 
us  see.  A  bank  is  established  at  a  point  thirty  or  forty  miles 
distant  from  any  other  bank.     Every  man  within  its  circle  has 

^  American  Political  Economy,  (New  York,  1S70,)  pp.  3r4,  315. 


•% 


550  CURRENCY  AND    THE   BANKS. 

been  accustomed  to  keep  in  his  pocket  or  safe  a  considerable 
sum  of  money.  The  average  amount  that  be  thus  keeps  is 
virtually  withdrawn  from  circulation,  and  for  the  time  being  is 
cancelled,  is  dead.  After  the  new  bank  is  established,  a  large 
portion  of  that  average  amount  is  deposited  with  liie  bank,  and 
a  smaller  amount  is  carried  in  his  safe  or  pocket.  These  accu- 
mulated deposits  placed  in  the  bank  at  once  constitute  a  fund 
which  can  be  loaned  to  those  who  need  credit  At  least  four 
fifths  of  the  average  amount  of  deposits  can  be  loaned  out,  tlius 
converting  dead  capital  into  active  circulation. 

But  the  word  deposits  covers  far  more  than  the  sums  of  actual 
money  placed  in  the  bank  by  depositors.  McLeod,  in  his  great 
work  on  Banking,  says:  "Credits  standing  in  bankers' books, 
from  whatever  source,  arc  called  deposits.  Hence,  a  deposit,  in 
banking  language,  always  means  a  credit  in  a  banker's  books  in 
exchange  for  money  or  securities  for  money."  Much  the  lai^er 
proportion  of  all  bank  deposits  arc  of  this  class,  —  mere  credits 
on  the  books  of  the  bank.  Outside  the  bank  these  deposits  are 
represented  by  checks  and  drafts.  Inside  llic  bank,  they  effect 
settlements  and  make  thousands  of  payments  by  mere  trans- 
fer from  one  man's  account  to  that  of  another.  This  checking, 
counter-checking,  and  transferring  of  credit  amounts  to  a  sum 
vastly  greater  than  all  the  deposits.  No  stronger  illustration  of 
the  practical  use  of  deposits  can  be  found  than  in  the  curious 
fact  that  all  the  heavy  payments  made  by  the  merchants  and 
dealers  of  the  city  of  Amsterdam,  for  half  a  century,  were  made 
through  a  supposed  deposit  that  had  entirely  disappeared  some 
fifty  years  before  its  removal  was  detected.  Who  does  not  know 
that  the  $600,000,000  of  deposits  reported  every  quarter  as  a 
part  of  the  liability  of  the  national  banks  are  mainly  credits 
that  the  banks  have  given  to  business  men?  The  $200,000,000 
now  supposed  to  be  deposited  in  the  banks  of  New  York  never 
existed  there  at  any  one  time,  nor  even  the  fifth  part  of  it. 
About  four  fifths  of  the  deposits  are  constantly  loaned  out  to 
customers.  The  declared  deposits  in  the  Boston  banks  are 
about  $50,000,000,  and  the  mere  shifting  of  this  amount  of 
credits  in  the  banks  wipes  out  two  or  three  hundred  millions 
of  indebtedness  every  week.  After  alluding  to  this  latter  fact. 
Professor  Bo  wen  remarks:  "The  relative  amount  of  the  bank 
circulation,  or  of  the  specie  reserve,  has  nothing  to  do  with  this 
result,  any  more  than  it  has  with  the  position  of  the  planets,  for 


CURRENCY  AND  THE  BANKS.  SSI 

the  whole  process  might  go  on  undisturbed  if  there  were  not  a 
specie  dollar  or  a  paper  dollar  in  existence." 

If  the  analysis  that  I  have  attempted  to  make  of  the  princi- 
ples which  govern  trade  and  business  be  correct,  it  will  aid  in 
ascertaining  the  wants  of  the  country,  and  in  determining  what 
legislation  is  necessary  to  meet  the  demands  of  business. 

Mr.  Speaker,  I  shall  venture  to  hope  that  those  who  have 
honored  me  with  their  attention  thus  far  will  agree  that  a  mere 
supply  of  currency,  however  abundant,  will  not  meet  the  case. 
Coin  and  currency  form  only  the  change,  the  pocket-money,  of 
trade.  For  the  great  transactions  which  the  marvellous  energies 
of  our  people  are  carrying  on,  they  need  and  will  demand  that 
greater  instrument  of  modern  invention,  - —  that  credit  currency, 
properly  secured  and  guarded,  which  takes  the  forms  of  checks, 
drafts,  and  commercial  bills.  And  this  brings  me  to  the  ques- 
tion, How  is  the  country  now  supplied  with  currency,  and  with 
those  other  facilities  for  the  transaction  of  business? 

It  ought  to  be  understood  everywhere  that  the  great  injustice 
done  to  the  Western  and  Southern  portions  of  the  country  by 
the  present  distribution  of  banking  facilities  is  so  flagrant  that 
it  will  not  much  longer  be  endured ;  and  if  the  wrong  be  not 
soon  righted,  the  overthrow  of  the  national  banking  system  is 
imminent 

In  entering  upon  this  question  I  am  met  by  our  philosophical 
Eastern  friends,  who  say,  **  Put  the  currency  wherever  you  please, 
and,  like  water  on  the  top  of  the  mountain,  it  will  find  its  level ; 
the  distribution,  therefore,  makes  no  difference,  for  the  currency 
will  necessarily  find  its  natural  place." 

Mr.  Speaker,  I  recognize  the  truth  asserted ;  but  insist  that  it 
is  not  applicable  to  the  case  in  hand.  I  offer,  in  answer,  the 
fact  that  the  distribution  of  banking  facilities  under  the  State 
system,  before  the  war,  is  a  better  test  of  the  wants  of  business 
than  the  present  distribution.  What  are  the  facts?  In  1860-61, 
in  eleven  of  the  Southern  and  Southwestern  States,  there  were 
two  hundred  and  ninety  banks  of  issue,  having  a  capital  of 
$119,223,633,  and  a  circulation  of  $74,153,545,  besides  specie 
to  the  amount  of  $26,064,503.  Contrast  that  with  the  present 
situation.  Trace  a  line  from  the  ocean  westward,  by  the  south 
line  of  Maryland,  Pennsylvania,  West  Virginia,  Ohio,  Indiana, 
IlHnois,  and  Missouri,  and  we  find  that  in  the  twelve  States  south 
of  that  line,  whose  population  in  i860  was  nine  millions,  there 


552 


CURRENCY  AND   THE  BANKS. 


are  but  seventy-one  national  banks,  with  a  capital  of  only 
$13,117,500,  and  a  circulation  of  but  $8,936,170.  Besides  the 
increase  of  population,  the  four  inilhon  slaves  have  now  become 
users  of  currency.  In  lliose  States  there  is  not  more  than  sev- 
ent>--five  cents  per  tapita  of  bank  circulation.  It  is  monstrous 
to  pretend  that  such  a  distribution  is  cither  equitable  or  just 

In  1S61,  the  banks  of  the  six  New  England  States  had  a 
capital  of  $1 19.590,433,  and  a  circulation  of  $44,991,285.  NoW 
the  same  Sutcs,  with  a  population  of  3,136,283.  as  shown  by 
the  last  census,  have  $1 50,000,000  of  national  bank  capita],  and 
$104,500,910  of  bank  circulation.  This  is  $33^'  to  each  in- 
habitant, an  increase  of  one  hundred  and  thirty-three  per  cent 
since  1861,  while  in  the  Southern  and  Southwestern  States  the 
circulation  has  been  reduced  eighty-eight  per  cent. 

The  States  of  the  Northwest,  where  the  increase  of  wealth 
and  population  is  greatest,  have  also  suffered  heavily  from 
this  unequal  and  unjust  distribution.  Compare  Wisconsin  and 
Rhode  Island  at  the  two  periods :  — 


Cncutaliin,  iWi. 

CroitatioB,  .»«. 

1 74,620 

*3-77J.i4' 

>  1 1.486.900 

775.SS. 

4.3">.i;S 

2.508.10. 

\ 


Within  the  last  decade,  Wisconsin  has  increased  in  popula- 
tion and  wealth  much  more  rapidly  than  Rhode  Island;  and 
yet  in  amount  of  currency  Rhode  Island,  which  had  one  third 
less  than  Wisconsin  in  1861,  has  five  times  more  in  1869, 

I  append  a  table  showing  the  population  of  the  States  in 
i860,  the  number  of  banks,  their  capital  and  circulation  in  1861, 
and  the  corresponding  facts  concerning  the  national  banks  at 
the  date  of  the  last  report.' 

This  inequality  of  distribution  was  brought  about  partly  by 
legislation,  but  mainly  by  a  gross  violation  of  the  law. 

Mr.  Wood.  Will  the  gentleman  permit  me  to  ask  turn  upon  what 
data,  or  basis,  he  makes  his  statement? 

I  will  do  so.  The  first  national  banking  act,  of  February  25. 
1863,  provided  for  the  entire  amount  of  circulating  notes  to  be 
issued.     It  contained  this  clause :  — 

"  That  the  entire  amount  of  circulating  notes  to  be  issued  under  this 

act  shall  not  exceed  ^300,000,000,  of  which  sum  ^150,000,000  shall  be 

apportioned  to  associations  in  the  States,  in  the  District  of  Columbia,  and 

>  See  Table  A,  »  Ibc  end  of  this  Speech. 


%. 


CURRENCY  AND   THE  BANKS.  553 

in  the  Territories,  according  to  representative  population,  and  the  re- 
mainder shall  be  apportioned  by  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  among 
associations  formed  in  the  several  States,  in  the  District  of  Columbia,  and 
in  the  Territories,  having  due  regard  to  the  existing  banking  capital,  re- 
sources, and  business  of  such  States,  District,  and  Territories." 

This  provision  contained  two  rules  of  distribution.  First,  that 
$150,000,000  should  be  distributed  according  to  population. 
This  would  be  about  five  dollars  to  each  inhabitant.  Secondly, 
that  the  remaining  $150,000,000  should  be  distributed  with  due 
regard  to  the  existing  bank  capital,  resources,  and  business  of 
the  country.  In  the  revised  act  of  June  3,  1864,  this  clause,  pre- 
scribing the  rule  of  distribution,  either  by  accident  or  design, 
was  repealed,  but  it  was  restored  to  the  law  by  the  act  of  March 
3,  1865.  At  that  time  less  than  $70,000,000  of  national  bank 
circulation  had  been  issued.  On  the  same  day,  however,  another 
act  was  passed,  allowing  any  State  bank  having  a  paid  up  capital 
of  not  less  than  $75,000  to  become  a  national  bank  before  the 
1st  of  July,  1865.  This  provision,  taken  alone,  would  doubtless 
be  construed  as  suspending  the  rule  of  distribution ;  but  as  it 
and  the  distribution  clause  were  approved  on  the  same  day^ 
they  should  have  been  construed  together,  and  the  State  banks 
should  have  been  allowed  to  convert,  subject  to  the  rule  of  dis- 
tribution. The  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  and  the  Comptroller 
of  the  Currency,  however,  allowed  the  conversion  of  State  banks 
to  go  on  in  disregard  of  this  rule.  In  July,  1865,  when  the 
privilege  of  conversion  granted  to  the  State  banks  had  expired, 
there  had  been  but  $131,452,158  of  national  bank  currency 
issued.  Under  any  construction  of  the  two  acts  of  March  3, 
1865,  it  was  clearly  the  duty  of  the  officers  charged  with  the 
execution  of  the  law  to  limit  all  subsequent  issues  of  such  cur- 
rency within  the  provisions  of  the  rule  of  distribution.  But 
even  after  that  date  the  rule  was  wholly  neglected ;  and  before 
January,  1867,  the  whole  amount  of  circulation  authorized  by 
law  had  been  issued  to  a  crowd  of  State  banks  that  came  rush- 
ing into  the  national  system,  producing  the  great  injustice  that 
we  now  experience. 

Mr.  Wood.  If  the  gentleman  from  Ohio  will  permit  me,  I  will  say 
right  here,  without  interrupting  his  argument,  that  I  apprehend  he  con- 
founds banking  capital  with  circulation. 

Not  at  all.  If  the  gentleman  will  refer  to  the  printed  tables, 
he  will  see  they  arc  referred  to  in  separate  columns. 


554  CURRENCY  AND    THE  BANKS. 

Mr.  Wood.  I  am  aware  there  is  no  difficulty  in  ascertaining  the  dis- 
tribution of  banking  capital,  and  on  that  banking  capital  under  the  law 
the  circulation  is  permitted ;  but  it  is  no  indication  of  the  real  amount  of 
circulation  in  existence.  For  instance,  the  gentleman  has  veij-  properly 
stated  lliat  the  city  of  New  York  possesses  one  sixth  of  the  amount  al- 
lowed ;  but  he  has  not  stated  the  additional  fact,  that  the  State  of  New 
York  is  continually  sending  its  circulation  into  the  West  and  South,  and, 
indeed,  into  every  portion  of  the  United  States  where  the  commerce  and 
business  of  those  sections  require  additional  circulation.  Therefore  the 
circubtion  we  have  is  nol  for  our  own  local  use;  but  is  used  everywhere 
for  the  necessities  of  business  and  commerce. 

I  should  be  glad  to  yield  to  the  gentleman,  but  I  have  not 
the  time.     The  gentleman  from  New  York  has  led  me  directly 
to  the  next  point  I  had  intended  to  discuss.     It  is  not  in  tlie 
nncqunl  distribution  of  tlic  currency  alone,  but  in  the  unequal  - 
distribution   of  banking   facilities,   that   the   great   injustice  tim 
perpetrated  upon  the  West  and  South.     They  are  deprived  o^fl 
what  is  far  more  important  than  circulation,  —  the  facilities  fiit^ 
banking  and  credit,  which  a  proper  distribution  of  banking  cap<^ 
ital   would  give  them.     Destitute  of  banks,  business   men  argB 
compelled  to  keep  on  hand  a  large  amount  of  currency,  which 
is  thus  virtually  locked  up  from  circulation.     With  banks  prop- 
erly distributed  in  the  destitute  neighborhoods,  this  currency 
would  be  deposited,  and  would  form  the  foundation  of  loans, 
drafts,  checks,  and  the  vast  transactions  that  banks  enable  the 
people  to  perform.     An  increase  of  the  greenback  currency 
would  merely  give  additional  circulation,  but  would  afford  none 
of  the  advantages  which  accompany  the  establishment  of  banks. 

I  call  attention  to  a  circumstance  which  seriously  aggravates 
this  inequality  of  distribution.  The  great  fluctuations  caused 
by  the  uncertain  value  of  our  inconvertible  currency  have  long 
depressed  legitimate  business  and  greatly  stimulated  mere  specu- 
lation. The  result  Is,  that  our  currency  has  been  steadily  flow- 
ing into  the  centres  of  speculation,  to  be  used  in  that  fatal  but 
fascinating  game  which  is  played  every  day  in  the  stock^xchange 
and  gold  room.  For  example,  during  the  summer  of  1869,  the 
exchanges  of  the  gold  clearing-house  of  New  York  averaged 
nearly  $100,000,000  per  day,  more  than  ninety  per  cent  of 
which  was  used  in  mere  financial  gambling;  and  though  the 
material  in  which  these  speculators  dealt  was  what  Mr.  Fisk 
calls  "phantom  gold,"  yet  in  playing  their  reckless  game  they 
kept   locked  up  from  the  legitimate  business  of  the  country 


CURRENCY  AND  THE  BANKS.  555 

millions  on  millions  of  currency.  At  the  present  moment 
there  is  a  glut  of  currency  in  New  York,  and  a  dearth  of  it 
in  the  West.  I  read  a  passage  from  the  money  article  of  a  late 
New  York  paper :  — 

"  The  New  York  banks  owe,  May  28  ;  — 

On  deposits .  1228,039,345 

On  circulation 33,132,478 

Total 1261,171,823 

Twenty-five  per  cent  reserve  would  be.    .    .      I65, 292,956 
They  hold,  in  gold  and  greenbacks  .     .     .     .        94,346,711 

Excess ^g9>QS  3^755 

"  Rate  for  money  four  to  five.     Speculation  in  the  gold  room  is  duU" 

It  is  not  often  that  so  many  suggestive  and  important  facts 
are  grouped  together  in  the  same  place. 

Mr.  Ingersoll.    It  is  four  per  cent  on  call,  is  it  not? 

Certainly.  That  is  the  meaning  of  the  quotation.  Ninety- 
four  millions  of  currency  reserves  in  the  vaults,  —  $29,ocx),ooo 
more  than  the  law  requires,  —  money  a  drug  at  four  and  five  per 
cent,  and  all  this  because  speculation  in  the  gold  room  was  dull ; 
while  millions  of  our  industrious  citizens  find  it  diflficult  to  bor- 
row money  at  ten  and  fifteen  per  cent !  It  is  marvellous  with 
what  patience  the  American  people  permit  themselves  to  be 
robbed  and  defrauded ! 

These  speculators  are  now  waiting  to  see  what  financial  laws 
we  pass,  as  my  friend  ^  before  me  suggests,  and  what  influence 
they  will  have  on  the  operations  of  the  gold  room.  In  this  sus- 
pense, the  gamblers  of  Wall  Street  are  letting  their  money  lie 
idle  to  see  which  way  the  tide  will  turn.  Let  Congress  neglect 
to  pass  the  legislation  which  is  necessary  to  overcome  the  diffi- 
culties of  the  situation,  and  we  shall  see  the  scenes  of  July, 
August,  and  September  last  with  its  "Black  Friday,"  re-enacted. 
I  hasten  to  say  that  I  by  no  means  indorse  the  notion  that 
Congress  can  determine,  by  any  artificial  mathematical  rule, 
just  how  the  currency  ought  to  be  distributed  through  the  coun- 
try, or  how  much  is  needed ;  but  it  cannot  be  denied  that  our 
past  experience  and  present  situation  demonstrate  the  outra- 
geous injustice  done  to  the  West  and  South  in  regard  to  the 
currency. 

And  now  I  inquire  for  a  remedy.     What  shall  it  be?     By 

1  Mr.  JudA 


556  CVRJRBNCV  ANP   THE  BANKS. 

what  means  shall  we  supply  the  West  and  South  with  currencjp] 
and  banking  facilities  to  meet  the  demands  of  their  ra 
creasing  population  and  wealth?  Shall  it  be  by  an  immediate 
increase  of  the  volume  of  our  paper  money,  to  be  followed  by  a 
greater  depreciation  of  the  whole  mass,  an  increase  of  prices, 
and  a  great  and  disastrous  disturbance  of  values  and  of  all  busi- 
ness transactions?  For  myself,  I  do  not  hesitate  to  declare  tliat 
Such  legislation  would  be  in  every  way  ruinous  to  tlie  interests 
and  destructive  to  the  credit  of  the  country.  I  believe  tliat  the 
volume  of  our  paper  currency  is  already  too  large,  and  diata 
resumption  of  specie  payments  would  reduce  it. 

But,  Mr.  Speaker,  whatever  may  be  our  individual  opinionSf  j 
it  is  clear  that  no  measure  of  inflation  can  by  any  possibiliQ''  1 
become  a  law  during  the   present  session  of  Congress.     The 
following  resolution,  which  passed  the  Senate  without  a  dissent- 
ing vote,  on  the  24th  of  February  last,  indicates  that  no  meas- 
ure  of  inflation  can  meet  the  assent  of  that  body.     I  quote  the 
proceedings  of  the  Senate  on  this  subject,  as  recorded  in  the  1 
Globe:  — 

"THE    CURRENCY. 

"  Mb.  Williams  submitted  the  following  resolution  for  coDsiden- 
tion;  — 

"  Resolved,  That  to  add  to  the  present  irredeemable  paper  currency  of 
the  country  would  be  to  render  more  difficult  and  remote  the  resump- 
tion of  specie  payments,  to  encourage  and  foster  the  spirit  of  speculation, 
to  aggravate  the  evils  produced  by  frequent  and  sudden  fluctuations  of 
values,  to  depreciate  the  credit  of  the  nation,  and  to  check  the  healthful 
tendency  of  legitimate  business  to  settle  down  upon  a  safe  and  perma- 
nent basis  ;  and  therefore,  in  the  opinion  of  the  Senate,  the  existing  vol- 
ume of  such  currency  ought  not  to  be  increased. 

"  The  Vice-President.  Is  there  objection  to  the  present  considera- 
tion of  the  resolution? 

"  Mr.  Sheruan.     I  hope  not     Let  it  [>ass. 

"  Mr.  Sumner.    Let  it  pass. 

"  The  Vice-Preside-vt.  The  Chair  hears  no  objection  to  the  present 
consideration  of  the  resolution,  and  it  is  before  the  Senate. 

"  The  resolution  was  agreed  to." 

It  is  equally  clear  that  no  measure  for  the  resumption  of 
specie  payments  that  includes  contraction  of  the  currency  as 
one  of  its  provisions  can  pass  this  House,  during  the  present 
Congress.  Shut  up  within  these  limitations,  practically  forbid- 
den either  to  increase  or  diminish, the  volume  of  the  currency, 


x 

1 


CURRENCY  AND   THE  BANKS.  557 

the  Committee  on  Banking  and  Currency  were  instructed  by  the 
House  of  Representatives,  February  21,  1870,' to  perform  the 
duty  described  in  the  following  resolution :  "  Resolved^  That,  in 
the  opinion  of  the  House,  the  business  interests  of  the  country 
require  an  increase  in  the  volume  of  circulating  currency,  and  the 
Committee  on  Banking  and  Currency  are  instructed  to  report  to 
the  House,  at  as  early  a  day  as  practicable,  a  bill  increasing  the 
currency  to  the  amount  of  at  least  $50,000,000." 

Under  these  circumstances  the  duty  of  the  committee  was 
very  difficult  to  perform.  Shut  up  between  Scylla  on  the  one 
side  and  Charybdis  on  the  other,  and  instructed  by  the  peremp- 
tory resolution,  what  could  the  committee  do?  It  must  give 
more  banking  facilities.  It  must  give  more  circulating  cur- 
rency. But  it  must  neither  increase  nor  decrease  the  volume  of 
the  currency. 

One  term  in  the  resolution  was  the  lamp  by  which  our  feet 
were  guided.  That  term  was  **  circulating  currency."  It  did 
not  mean  greenbacks ;  manifestly  not,  for  my  friend  from  Illi- 
nois^ had  again  and  again  tried  to  lead  the  House  to  pronounce 
in  favor  of  an  increase  of  greenback  circulation,  and  had  failed 
every  time  by  more  than  twenty  votes.  Did  it  mean  an  increase 
of  bank  circulation?  The  House  could  hardly  have  meant  that, 
considering  the  impossibility  of  getting  such  a  measure  through 
both  houses  of  Congress.  "  Circulating  currency,"  was  the  term 
used ;  *'  circulating  currency  "  was  the  key  to  the  situation.  In 
bank  credits  —  checks,  drafts,  bills  of  exchange,  and  certificates  of 
deposit  —  an  increase  of  circulating  currency  could  be  obtained 
without  an  inflation  of  the  total  volume  of  greenbacks  and  bank- 
notes. Guided  by  these  views,  and  thus  limited,  the  committee 
introduced  the  measure  now  before  the  House.  It  is  the  result 
of  a  compromise  of  many  differences  of  opinion,  and  perhaps 
suits  no  member  of  the  committee  in  all  its  features ;  yet,  on 
the  whole,  they  believe  it  will  give  the  needed  relief,  with  the 
least  disturbance  to  the  business  of  the  country,  and  without 
injury  to  the  public  credit.  I  now  invite  the  attention  of  the 
House  to  its  provisions. 

The  bill  aims  at  two  leading  objects :  to  provide  for  a  more 
equitable  distribution  of  the  currency  without  contraction  or 
inflation,  and  without  increased  expense  to  the  government, 
and  to  provide  for  free  banking  on  a  specie  basis.     The  first  of 

^  Mr.  IngersolL 


5s8  CURRENCY  AND    THE  BANKS. 

these  objects  it  is  proposed  to  reach  by  the  provisions  of  the 
first  six  and  the  last  tliree  sections  of  the  bill.  The  second 
object  is  provided  for  in  the  remaining  sections,  being  the  sev- 
enth, eighth,  and  ninth. 

The  provisions  for  the  more  equitable  distribution  of  the  cur- 
rency and  the  increase  of  banking  facilities  arc  the  following:  — 

First  The  issue  of  $95,000,000  of  national  bank  notes  in 
States  having  less  than  their  proper  proportion. 

Second.  The  cancellation  and  retirement  of  the  three  per  cent 
certificates,  which  now  amount  in  round  numbers  to  $45,500,000, 
and  the  cancellation  and  retirement  of  $39,500,000  of  United 
States  notes. 

Third.  When  the  whole  amount  of  the  $95,000,000  of  ad- 
ditional notes  shall  have  been  issued,  circulation  shall  be  with- 
drawn from  States  having  an  excess,  and  distributed  to  States 
that  are  deficient,  in  such  sums  as  may  be  required,  not  cx- 
.  cceding  in  the  aggregate  $25,000,000,  There  were  two  reasons 
for  choosing  $95,000,000  as  the  amount  to  be  issued. 

The  first  was,  that,  by  a  comparison  of  the  circulation  as  no» 
distributed  with  the  amounts  that  should  have  been  issued  ao* 
cording  to  the  rule  of  distribution,  it  was  found  that  the  defi- 
ciency in  the  States  which  had  less  than  their  proper  propor- 
tions amounted  to  nearly  $95,000,000.  This  is  fully  exhibited 
in  the  following  table:  — 

List  of  Stata  which  secured  less  than  th4ir  proportion  0/  National  Sank 
Circulation  under  existing  laws,  together  wUh  the  balance  to  which  each 
of  them  is  entitled. 


Virginia ^8,596,030 

West  Virginia  .    .    .  800,450 

Illinois 1,887,715 

Michigan     .     .     .     .  1,375.745 

Wisconsin    ....  3,703,398 

Iowa 1,191,413 

Kansas 3O5i50o 

Missouri      ....  5,346,475 

Kentucky    ....  8,133,380 

Tennessee   ....  7,574,449 

Louisiana    ....  9,486,41 1 

Mississippi  ....  5,311,617 

Nebraska     ....  11.500 

Georgia 8,186,400 


North  Carolina 
South  Carolina 
Alabama 
Oregon  .     . 
Texas      .     . 
Arkansas     . 
Utah.     .     . 
California    . 
Florida  .    . 
Dakota  .     . 
New  Mexico 
Washington  Tenitoiy 

Total, 


j  7, 1 66,800 

7,373-5<» 

7.136,353 

383,000 

3.553.465 

3,545,100 

103,000 

3,003,000 

9S5.SOO 

37,000 

486,000 

83,500 


^94,43  3,61 1 


CURRENCY  AND  THE  BANKS.  559 

The  second  reason  was  that  the  House  had  instructed  the 
committee  to  provide  for  $50,000,000  for  the  business  wants  of 
the  country ;  and  as  the  Senate  had  already  passed  a  bill  provid- 
ing for  the  issue  of  $45,000,000  in  lieu  of  the  three  per  cents,  the 
two  amounts  would  make  $95,000,000. 

Aside  from  any  question  of  redistribution  of  the  currency,  it 
will  hardly  be  denied  that  these  three  per  cent  certificates  should 
at  once  be  redeemed.  It  will  be  remembered  that  they  were 
issued  to  aid  in  retiring  the  compound-interest  notes.  The 
Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  in  his  last  annual  report,  made  the 
following  recommendation  in  regard  to  these  three  per  cents. 

"The  three  per  cent  certificates  are  a  substitute,  to  a  considerable 
extent,  for  United  States  notes,  being  largely  held  by  the  banks  as  a  por- 
tion of  their  reserve,  and  thus  indirectly,  though  not  to  their  full  nominal 
value,  they  swell  the  volume  of  currency. 

"  I  recommend  that  provision  be  made  for  the  redemption  of  the  three 
per  cent  certificates  within  a  reasonable  time,  and,  as  a  compensating 
measure  for  the  reduction  in  the  amount  of  currency  which  would  thus 
be  caused,  that  authority  be  given  to  grant  circulation  to  banks,  in  the 
States  where  the  banking  capital  is  less  than  the  share  to  which  they 
would  be  entitled,  to  an  amount  not  exceeding  I3 5, 000,000  in  the  aggre- 
gate. The  redemption  of  the  three  per  cent  certificates,  and  the  addi- 
tions to  the  banking  capital,  might  be  so  arranged  as  not  to  produce  a 
serious  disturbance  in  the  finances  or  business  of  the  country,  while  ad- 
ditional banking  capital  would  be  supplied  to  the  sections  now  in  need  of 
it,  and  this  without  any  increase  of  the  volume  of  circulation."  ^ 

As  a  loan  they  are  the  most  dangerous  form  of  our  interest- 
bearing  debt.  They  are  payable  on  demand,  and  in  any  great 
fitiancial  crisis  might  be  precipitated  upon  the  Treasury  at 
once,  to  the  great  distress  and  discredit  of  the  government. 
They  are  mainly  used  by  the  national  banks  in  the  redemption 
cities  as  reserves;  and  it  is  a  scandal  that  these  banking  in- 
stitutions should  be  permitted  to  draw  interest  on  the  reserves 
which  they  are  required  to  hold  to  secure  their  circulation  and 
deposits.  There  is  no  stronger  ground  of  objection  to  the  na- 
tional banking  system  than  that  such  partiality  should  be  per- 
mitted. The  country  banks  have  no  advantage  of  these  three 
per  cents,  for  the  reports  of  the  Comptroller  of  the  Currency 
show  that  none  of  them  are  held  outside  of  city  banks.  Not 
only  are  we  allowing  interest  on  these  reserves,  but  their  value 

1  Message  from  the  President,  with  the  Reports  of  the  Heads  of  Departments, 
(Washington,  1870,)  pp.  32,  33. 


56&  CURRENCY  AND   THE  BANKS. 

has  steadily  appreciated,  and  they  are  to-day  worth  nearly 
twenty  cents  more  than  when  they  were  first  issued. 

In  the  next  place,  the  bill  provides  for  the  withdrawal  and 
cancellation  of  $39,500,000  of  United  States  notes.  The  first 
effect  of  this  decrease  will  be  to  appreciate  the  value  of  the 
remaining  mass,  and  thus  tend  towards  specie  payments.  But 
a  more  important  result  will  be  that,  as  the  national  banks  are 
required  to  keep  the  valus  of  their  own  circulation  equal  to  the 
value  of  greenbacks,  they  wilt  be  called  upon  to  exchange  their 
own  notes  for  greenbacks  on  demand.  This  will  tend  to  call 
back  the  circulation  of  every  national  bank  to  its  own  neighbor- 
hood, and  thus  more  equitably  distribute  the  whole  volunae  of 
circulation. 

Notwithstanding  the  present  glut  of  currency  in  New  Yori^ 
the  brokers  of  Wall  Street  join  in  full  cry  against  this  bill,  be- 
cause it  proposes  to  take  away  some  of  the  vast  surplus  they 
hold,  and  distribute  it  to  the  destitute  portions  of  the  country. 
It  is  a  little  singular  that  it  is  severely  attacked  in  the  public 
journals  on  exactly  opposite  grounds.  The  critics  on  one  sidfl 
declare  it  is  a  severe  measure  of  contraction,  and  those  on  the 
other  declare,  with  equal  positiveness,  that  it  will  result  in  great 
inflation.  I  invite  the  attention  of  those  who  charge  that  this 
bill  contracts  the  currency,  to  the  following  considerations. 

This  bill  proposes  to  redeem  $45,500,000  of  three  per  cents, 
and  to  cancel  $39,500,000  of  United  States  notes,  making  a  total 
withdrawal  of  $85,000,000,  and  to  issue  $95,000,000  of  national 
bank  notes,  the  issue  in  every  case  to  precede  the  withdrawal,  so 
as  to  avoid  any  shock  to  business.  This  will  leave  in  existence 
$10,000,000  more  of  paper  currency  than  we  now  have,  count- 
ing the  whole  value  of  the  three  per  cents  equivalent  to  cur- 
rency. But  the  three  per  cents  serve  as  currency  only  when 
they  are  used  as  bank  reserves,  and,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  they 
have  never  all  been  held  as  bank  reserves  at  any  one  time. 
During  the  last  year  and  a  half  there  has  been  an  average  of 
$3,000,000  of  them  that  was  not  held  by  the  banks.  The  correct 
statement  therefore  is,  that  this  bill  will  create  between  twelve 
and  thirteen  millions  more  of  paper  money  than  now  exists. 

A  portion  of  the  committee  were  in  favor  of  making  the  with- 
drawals exactly  equal  to  the  issues ;  but  the  fact  that  all  the 
national  bank  notes  issued  will  require  a  greenback  reserve  of 
from  fifteen  to  twenty-five  per  cent  of  the  amount  of  circulation, 


\ 


CURRENCY  AND   THE  BANKS.  561 

led  the  committee  to  make  this  increase  of  the  issue  counter- 
balance the  virtual  contraction  caused  by  the  withdrawal  of  such 
reserves.  In  my  judgment,  the  additional  reserves  required  by 
this  bill  will  not  in  fact  decrease  the  amount  of  legal-tender 
notes  in  actual  circulation,  for  the  reason  that  the  national  banks 
hold  a  much  larger  reserve  than  the  law  requires.  The  official 
reports  show  that,  during  the  last  fifteen  months,  the  reserves 
held  by  the  banks  have  averaged  $224,000,000,  while  they  were 
required  by  law  to  hold  but  $169,000,000.  It  will  thus  be  seen 
that  they  constantly  hold  $55,000,000  more  than  the  law  re- 
quires. The  new  reserves  required  by  this  bill  will  doubtless  be 
drawn  from  the  surplus,  and  not  from  the  active  circulation  of 
the  country.  There  is,  therefore,  no  ground  for  the  assertion 
that  this  bill  contracts  the  currency. 

I  wish  I  were  able  to  demonstrate  also  that  there  is  no  infla- 
tion in  the  bill.  Here  is  the  feature  most  unsatisfactory  to  me. 
For  four  years  past  I  have  pleaded  for  some  practical  legislation, 
looking  toward  a  gradual  and  safe  return  to  specie  payments. 
It  has  been  clear  to  my  mind  that  resumption  is  impossible  so 
long  as  the  present  volume  of  inconvertible  currency  is  main- 
tained. I  have,  therefore,  strenuously  opposed  all  attempts  to 
increase  its  volume.  But,  deeply  impressed  with  the  necessity 
of  giving  larger  facilities  to  the  West  and  South,  and  of  re- 
lieving the  national  bank  system  from  the  odium  which  the 
present  unequal  distribution  brings  upon  it,  I  have  consented, 
with  reluctance,  to  this  feature  of  the  pending  bill,  believing  that 
the  benefits  conferred  by  the  bill  will  be  greater  than  the  evils 
that  will  result  from  the  measure  of  inflation  that  it  contains. 
The  actual  increase  of  circulating  notes  which  it  authorizes  is 
about  $13,000,000;  but  the  great  increase  of  credit  currency 
in  the  form  of  checks  and  drafts  will,  in  my  judgment,  result 
in  a  very  considerable  expansion  of  paper  credits.  I  cannot,  in 
justice  to  myself,  let  this  feature  of  the  bill  pass  without  ex- 
pressing my  regret  that  the  state  of  opinion  in  the  House  and 
country  requires  its  enactment. 

Mr.  Lynch.  This  bill,  I  believe,  provides  for  I95, 000,000  of  addi- 
tional bank  circulation,  and  for  the  retirement  of  I45, 000,000  of  three  per 
cent  certificates  and  $40,000,000  of  greenbacks,  making  185,000,000. 
From  the  ^19 5, 000,000  of  bank  circulation  authorized  by  this  bill  is  to 
be  deducted  a  reserve  on  circulation  of  twenty-five  per  cent  in  certain 
cities,  and  fifteen  per  cent  in  others,  averaging  say  twenty  per  cent ;  to 

VOL.  I.  36 


562  CUHHENCY  AND   THE  BANKS. 

which  must  be  added  the  reserve  on  deposits,  which,  being  equal  on  the 
average  to  the  circulation,  would  take  Jig.ooo.ooo  more,  tnaiing  a  total 
reserve  of  538,000,000  to  be  deducted  from  the  Jgs.ooo.ooo  author- 
ized, leaving  but  557,000,000  aclnallj'  going  into  circulation,  while  the 
amount  actually  retired  by  the  bill  is  885,000,000.  So  that  under  the 
operation  of  this  bill  there  would  be  a  contraction  of  the  currency  to 
the  extent  of  2i8,ooo,ooo.  I  would  like  to  know  how  the  geiideroan 
figures  out  an  increase  of  currency  under  this  bill. 

The  gentleman  says  thnt  the  $95,000,000  will  not  be  all  in 
circulation,  because  greenbacks  equivalent  to  twenty  per  cent 
of  it  will  have  to  be  locked  up  in  the  vaults  of  the  new  banks  as 
reserves,  I  answer  my  friend,  that  the  banks  now  keep  on  ao 
average  $55,000,000  more  of  reserves  than  they  are  required 
to  keep  by  law.  They  have  been  doing  so  for  more  than  two 
years  past.  All  that  will  happen,  therefore,  will  be  that  the  1 
volume  of  surplus  reserves  will  be  reduced.  It  will  not  lock  up 
any  more  currency;   indeed,  it  will  liberate  — 

Mr.  Lynch.  Docs  the  gentleman  undertake  to  say  that,  when  the  i 
banks  are  increased  in  number,  the  excess  of  reserve  which  they  keep.' 
will  not  be  increased  in  the  same  ralio  ?  How  will  the  excess  of  reserve 
he  reduced  by  an  increase  in  the  number  of  banks? 

I  have  examined  with  great  care  the  condition  of  the  reserves 
of  the  national  banks,  and  I  find  that  in  New  York  and  other 
money  centres,  for  reasons  that  1  have  already  stated,  there  is 
an  immense  surplus  reserve,  far  greater  than  the  reserve  in  the 
country  generally.  Now,  this  surplus  will  find  its  way  into  the 
reserves  of  the  new  banks.  The  surplus  reserve  will  undoubt- 
edly be  reduced  when  the  banking  system  is  extended,  when 
the  number  of  banks  in  the  West  and  South  is  increased,  and 
the  volume  of  legal  tenders  is  reduced  in  proportion  to  the 
increase  of  national  currency.  When  the  relative  value  of 
greenbacks  is  thus  increased,  the  banks  will  be  called  upon  to 
redeem  their  notes  in  legal  tender,  as  the  law  now  requires. 
This  will  keep  the  bank-notes  nearer  home  than  now.  They 
will  flow  back  from  the  money  centres,  and  find  their  way  into 
localities  where  they  are  needed  for  legitimate  business.  One 
of  the  evils  of  our  present  system  is,  that  the  national  banks 
rarely  redeem  any  of  their  notes.  They  are  not  asked  to  do  so. 
They  are  bound  by  law  to  redeem  them  in  greenbacks,  but  no 
one  demands  it.  Let  the  system  be  extended;  let  the  ratio 
between  greenbacks  and  national  bank  notes  be  changed  from 


CURRENCY  AND   THE  BANKS.  563 

$3CX5,ooo,ooo  of  national  currency  and  $400,000,000  of  green- 
backs, as  it  now  is,  to  exactly  the  opposite  condition ;  then  the 
banks  will  be  called  on  to  redeem,  and  that  will  keep  their  cir- 
culation at  home,  and  keep  it  better  distributed. 

I  recur  again  to  a  point  already  made,  that  the  facility  for 
obtaining  bank  credits  will  be  vastly  increased  by  this  bill.  I 
am  willing  it  shall  be  so.  I  can  reconcile  myself  to  it  only  on 
one  ground.  The  only  proper  basis  on  which  such  currency 
should  circulate  is  the  business  needs  of  the  country. 

But  some  gentlemen  say,  "  Increase  the  greenback  currency; 
issue  more;  it  is  popular;  it  is  safe;  it  is  cheap;  give  it  liber- 
ally, and  satisfy  the  wants  of  the  country.*'  This  brings  us  to 
the  question  whether  we  shall  have  the  national  bank  currency, 
or  a  currency  issued  directly  by  the  government.  All  those 
who  believe  that  the  national  banks  should  be  overthrown,  and 
that  the  government  should  itself  become  the  manufacturer  of 
the  currency  of  the  country,  will  doubtless  oppose  this  bill  in 
all  its  provisions.  There  are  a  few  gentlemen,  whose  opinions 
I  very  greatly  respect,  who  believe  such  a  substitution  ought  to 
take  place.     I  disagree  with  them  for  the  following  reasons. 

In  the  first  place,  it  is  the  experience  of  all  nations,  and  it  is 
the  almost  unanimous  opinion  of  all  eminent  statesmen  and 
financial  writers,  that  no  nation  can  safely  undertake  to  supply 
its  people  with  a  paper  currency  issued  directly  by  the  govern- 
ment. And,  to  apply  that  principle  to  our  own  country,  let  me 
ask  if  gentlemen  think  it  safe  to  subject  any  political  party 
that  may  be  in  power  in  this  country  to  the  great  temptation 
of  over  issues  of  paper  money  in  lieu  of  taxation.  In  times  of 
high  political  excitement,  and  on  the  eve  of  a  general  election, 
when  there  might  be  a  deficiency  in  the  revenues  of  the  coun- 
try, and  Congress  should  see  the  necessity  of  levying  additional 
taxes,  the  temptation  to  supply  the  deficit  by  an  increased  issue 
of  paper  money  would  be  overwhelming.  Thus  the  whole  busi- 
ness of  the  country,  the  value  of  all  contracts,  the  prices  of  all 
commodities,  the  wages  of  labor,  would  depend  upon  a  vote  of 
Congress.  For  one,  I  dare  not  trust  the  great  industrial  inter- 
ests of  this  country  to  such  uncertain  and  hazardous  chances. 
But  even  if  Congress  and  the  administration  should  be  always 
superior  to  such  political  temptations,  still  I  affirm,  in  the  sec- 
ond place,  that  no  human  legislature  is  wise  enough  to  deter- 
mine how  much   currency  the  wants  of  this  country  require. 


CURRENCY  AND   THE  BANKS. 

Test  it  in  this  House  to-day.  Let  every  member  mark  down 
the  amount  which  he  believes  the  business  of  the  country  re- 
quires, and  who  does  not  know  that  the  amounts  will  vary  by 
hundreds  of  millions?  But  a  third  objection,  stronger  even 
than  the  last,  is  that  such  a  currency  possesses  no  power  of 
adapting  itself  to  the  business  of  the  country.  Suppose  the 
total  issue  should  be  five  hundred  millions,  or  seven  hundred 
millions,  or  any  amount  you  please;  it  might  be  abundant  for 
spring  and  summer,  and  yet,  wlien  the  great  body  of  agricul- 
tural products  were  moving  off  to  market  in  the  fall,  it  might 
be  totally  insufiicient.  Fix  any  volume  you  please,  and,  if  it  be 
just  sufficient  at  one  period,  it  may  be  redundant  at  another,  of 
insufficient  at  another.  No  currency  can  meet  the  wants  of  this 
country  unless  it  is  founded  directly  upon  the  demands  of  busi-' 
ness,  and  not  upon  the  caprice  or  the  political  selfishness  rf' 
the  party  in  power. 

What  regulates  now  the  loans  and  discounts  and  credits  of' 
our  national  banks?  The  business  of  the  country.  The  amount 
increases,  decreases,  or  remains  stationary,  as  business  is  fluo 
tuating  or  steady.  This  is  a  natural  form  of  e.-cchangc.  based 
upon  the  business  of  the  country,  and  regulated  by  its  changes. 
And  when  that  happy  day  arrives  when  the  whole  volume  of 
our  currency  is  redeemable  in  gold  at  the  will  of  the  holder, 
and  is  recognized  by  all  nations  as  equal  to  money,  then  the 
whole  business  of  banking,  the  whole  volume  of  currency,  the 
whole  amount  of  credits,  whether  in  the  form  of  checks,  drafts, 
or  bills,  will  be  regulated  by  the  same  general  law,  —  the  busi- 
ness of  the  country.  Business  is  hke  the  level  of  the  ocean, 
from  which  all  measurements  of  heights  and  depths  are  made. 
Though  tides  and  currents  may  for  a  time  disturb,  and  tempests 
vex  and  toss  its  surface,  still,  through  calm  and  storm,  the 
grand  level  rules  all  its  waves,  and  lays  its  measuring-lines  on 
every  shore.  So  our  business,  which,  in  the  aggregated  de- 
mands of  the  people  for  exchange  of  values,  marks  the  ebb 
and  flow,  the  rise  and  fall,  of  the  currents  of  trade,  forms  the 
base-line  from  which  to  measure  all  our  financial  legislation,  and 
is  the  only  safe  rule  by  which  the  volume  of  our  currency  can 
be  determined. 

But  there  is  another  point  to  which  I  desire  to  call  attention. 
Whatever  may  have  been  our  opinions  and  wishes  hitherto, 
since  this  session   began,  the  Supreme  Court  of  the   United 


I 


CURRENCY  AND   THE  BANKS.  565 

States  have  made  a  decision  which  adds  a  new  and  important 
element  to  this  question.  The  court  has  declared  that  the  legal 
tender  notes  are  not,  and  cannot  be  made,  a  legal  tender  for 
debts  contracted  before  their  issue.  Now,  I  ask  gentlemen  to 
remember  that  my  friend  from  Illinois,^  who  is  the  champion  of 
greenback  issues  on  this  side  of  the  House,  realized  at  once  the 
importance  and  effect  of  that  decision ;  for,  within  two  or  three 
days  after  the  decision  was  announced,  —  I  believe  it  was  the 
very  next  day,  —  he  proposed  an  amendment  to  the  Constitu- 
tion of  the  United  States,  providing  that  it  should  be  lawful  for 
Congress  to  authorize  the  issue  of  Treasury  notes,  and  make 
them  a  legal  tender  in  the  payment  of  all  debts ;  thereby  admit- 
ting that  he  believed  such  an  amendment  necessary,  in  order 
that  such  an  issue  could  be  made.  Gentlemen  may  say  that 
we  can  issue  these  paper  notes,  omitting  the  legal  tender  pro- 
vision. But  does  any  one  think  it  wise  or  safe  to  add  another 
element  of  distraction  and  uncertainty  to  our  currency,  in  the 
form  of  a  new  note  not  receivable  for  old  debts,  or  indeed  for 
any  debts,  except  as  the  parties  may  agree?  I  call  the  atten- 
tion of  gentlemen  to  the  difficulties  in  the  way  of  such  legisla- 
tion, in  view  of  the  late  decision  of  the  Supreme  Court. 

Mr.  Ingersoll.  Do  I  understand  the  gentleman  from  Ohio  to  assume 
that  the  Supreme  Court  have  decided  that  it  was  not  within  the  power 
of  Congress  to  make  a  legal  tender  that  would  be  valid  for  pre-existing 
debts,  and  that  they  did  not  stop  when  they  decided  that  Congress  had 
not  done  so  by  the  act  under  which  the  legal  tenders  were  issued  ? 

The  court  decided  in  unmistakable  terms  that  such  a  power 
did  not  reside  in  Congress.  Nay,  the  decision  went  much  fur- 
ther than  this.  The  line  of  reasoning  pursued  by  the  court 
leads  us  to  the  belief  that,  when  the  proper  case  arises,  that 
tribunal,  unless  its  opinion  shall  have  been  changed  by  adding 
to  its  members,  will  decree  that  paper  notes  cannot  be  made  a 
legal  tender  by  act  of  Congress.  Indeed,  the  argument  in  the 
dissenting  opinion  was,  that  a  legal  tender  could  be  defended 
only  as  a  necessary  means  of  carrying  on  war ;  that  it  was  a  war 
measure,  based  on  the  war  power  of  the  Constitution.  Now, 
all  the  departments  of  the  government  have  decreed  that,  on 
the  loth  of  August,  1866,  the  war  had  ended.^ 

'  Mr.  Ingersoll. 

*  The  case  referred  to  above  is  that  of  Hepburn  v.  Griswold,  8  Wallace,  604,  in 
which  it  was  decided,  December,  1S69,  three  judges  out  of  seven  dissenting,  that  the 


566  CURRENCY  AND   THE  BANKS. 

Mr.  Speaker,  with  this  condition  of  things  before  us,  will  this 
House  of  Representatives  venture  to  embark  again  on  the 
boundless  sea  of  irredeemable  paper  money,  to  be  issued  by 
the  direct  authority  of  Congress? 

But  I  must  hasten  to  consider  the  second  object  of  the  bill, — 
namely,  free  banking  on  a  gold  basis.  It  may  be  urged  that 
this  provision  will  not  now  be  used.  If  it  should  not,  still  it  will 
stand  in  the  law,  beckoning  and  inviting  the  country  to  specie 
payments.  But  I  am  assured  by  many  gentlemen  from  the 
Pacific  coast  that  banks  will  be  there  established  on  a  gold 
basis.  I  am  assured,  also,  that  in  the  cities  of  Charleston  and 
New  Orleans,  and  to  some  extent  in  the  city  of  New  York, 
where  the  international  trade  is  conducted  in  gold,  such  banks 
will  soon  be  established.  My  friend  near  me,  from  Texas,^  says 
that  in  his  State  they  will  be  established.  All  the  circulation 
issued  under  this  clause  of  the  bill  —  and  I  call  the  attention  of 
my  friend  from  Illinois^  to  that  fact  —  will  be  an  absolute  in- 
crease of  the  currency.  I  am  assured  in  the  strongest  terms 
that  such  banks  will  be  established. 

There  is  another  consideration  which  I  desire  to  present  to 
the  House,  and  it  is  this.  We  are  not  permitted  to  choose  be- 
tween banks  and  no  banks.  We  are  not  permitted  to  choose 
between  a  national  banking  system,  and  a  greenback  system 
managed  immediately  by  the  officers  of  the  Treasury.  The  na- 
tional banks  exist  now  only  because  they  occupy  the  field,  and 
the  ten  per  cent  tax  on  State  circulation  prevents  the  issue  of 
State  bank  notes.  If  we  abolish  the  national  banks,  and  under- 
take to  conduct  the  business  of  this  country  by  issues  of  green- 
back currency,  the  influence  of  the  State  banks  and  of  banking 
capital  will  soon  compel  the  repeal  of  the  ten  per  cent  tax ;  and 
then  will  spring  up  again  all  the  wild-cat  banks  against  which 
the  gentleman  from  Illinois^  declaimed  so  eloquently  a  few 
days  ago. 

We  are  shut  up,  in  my  judgment,  to  one  of  two  things :  either 
to  maintain,  extend,  and   amend  the  present  national  banking 

clause  in  the  acts  of  1862  and  1S63  which  makes  United  States  notes  a  legal  tender 
in  payment  of  all  debts,  public  and  private,  in  so  far  as  it  applies  to  debts  contracted 
before  the  passage  of  those  acts,  is  unwarranted  by  the  Constitution.  In  the  legal- 
tender  cases,  Knox  v.  Lee,  and  Parker  v.  Davis,  12  Wallace,  457,  decided  Jauuar}*, 
1872,  the  court  having  been  reorganized,  this  decision  was  overruled,  four  judges 
out  of  nine  dissenting,  and  the  constitutionality  of  the  clause  as  applying  to  debts 
contracted  both  lx;fore  and  after  the  passage  of  the  acts  was  allSrmed. 
1  Mr.  Dcgener.  -  Mr.  Ingersoll. 


CURRENCY  AND   THE  BANKS.  567 

system,  or  to  go  back  to  the  old  system,  under  which  every  State 
was  tinkering  at  the  currency,  without  concert  of  action,  uncon- 
trolled by  any  general  law.  Then  banks  were  established  under 
the  laws  of  twenty-nine  different  States ;  they  were  granted  dif- 
ferent privileges,  subjected  to  different  restrictions,  and  their 
circulation  was  based  on  a  great  variety  of  securities,  of  differ- 
ent qualities  and  quantities.  In  some  States,  the  bill-holder  was 
secured  by  the  daily  redemption  of  notes  in  the  principal  city; 
in  others,  by  the  pledge  of  State  stocks ;  and  in  others,  by  coin 
reserves.  But  as  State  stocks  differed  greatly  in  value,  all  the 
way  from  the  repudiated  bonds  of  Mississippi  to  the  premium 
stock  of  Massachusetts,  there  was  no  uniformity  of  security,  and 
the  amount  of  coin  reserves  required  in  the  different  States  was 
so  various  as  to  make  that  security  almost  equally  irregular.  It 
required  the  study  of  a  lifetime  to  understand  the  various  sys- 
tems. There  were  State  banks  with  branches,  independent 
banks,  free  banks,  banks  organized  under  a  general  law,  and 
banks  with  special  charters.  They  represented  all  varieties  of 
condition  and  credit.  They  were  solvent,  suspended,  closed, 
wound  up,  broken,  according  as  the  fluctuations  of  trade,  and 
the  wisdom  or  folly,  the  honesty  or  rascality  of  their  managers, 
dictated.  Their  notes  had  no  uniformity  of  value,  and  nearly 
all  of  them  —  especially  those  of  the  West  and  South  —  lost 
heavily  in  current  value  when  carried  beyond  the  limits  of  the 
State.  Examine  a  Bank-Note  Reporter  for  1862-63,  and  con- 
sider the  mass  of  trash  there  set  down  as  the  paper  currency  of 
the  country. 

In  November,  1862,  the  circulation  of  bank  paper  in  the  loyal 
States  was  $167,000,000.  The  State  securities  for  this  amount 
were  only  $40,000,000,  leaving  over  $120,000,000  inadequately 
secured.  In  only  nine  of  the  States  did  the  law  require  the  cir- 
culation to  be  secured  by  State  bonds.  In  the  State  of  Illinois, 
from  185 1  to  1863,  the  failures  of  banks  numbered  eighty-nine, 
and  their  paper  ranged  from  thirty-eight  per  cent  to  one  hun- 
dred per  cent  below  par.  Of  the  $12,000,000  of  bank  circulation 
in  Illinois,  the  people  lost  two  or  three  millions  directly,  besides 
the  indirect  loss  of  as  many  millions  more  by  derangement  of 
business  and  ruin  to  private  interests.  Of  ten  suspended  banks 
in  Minnesota,  the  notes  were  redeemed  at  an  average  of  less 
than  thirty  cents  on  the  dollar.  Of  thirty-six  broken  banks  of 
Wisconsin,  only  six  redeemed  their  notes  at  so  high  a  rate  as 


568  CURRENCY  AND   THE  BANKS. 

eighty  cents  on  the  dollar,  Even  as  early  as  i860,  a  time  of 
great  commercial  prosperity,  the  official  report  of  only  eighteen 
States  showed  147  banks  broken,  234  closed,  and  131  worthless. 
Such  was  the  condition  of  512  banks;  the  whole  number  in 
those  States  being  1,231. 

But  there  was  one  kind  of  paper  issues  which  must  not 
be  overlooked,  —  the  vast  circulation  issued  by  counterfeiters. 
There  were  in  circulation  in  1862  about  seven  thousand  differ- 
ent kinds  of  notes  issued  by  the  fifteen  hundred  banks.  From 
statistics  carefully  compiled,  it  was  ascertained  that  there  were 
in  existence,  that  year,  over  three  thousand  kinds  of  altered 
notes,  seventeen  hundred  varieties  of  notes  ostensibly  issued  by 
banks  having  no  existence,  and  over  eight  hundred  varieties  of 
imitations.  Thus  it  appears  that  there  were  more  than  five  thou- 
sand five  hundred  varieties  of  fraudulent  notes  in  circulation; 
and  the  dead  weight  of  all  the  losses  occasioned  by  them  fell  at 
last  upon  the  people,  who  were  not  expert  in  such  matters. 
There  were  in  1862  but  two  hundred  and  fifty-tbree  banks 
whose  notes  had  not  been  altered  or  imitated. 

Let  it  be  remembered  that  for  nearly  half  a  century-  a  large 
part  of  tlic  revenues  of  the  genera!  government  were  received 
in  the  notes  of  these  State  banks,  in  all  stages  of  discredit  and 
depreciation,  and  with  all  the  attendant  risks  of  counterfeited  and 
altered  bills.  It  is  a  fact  worthy  of  remembrance,  that  in  1 8 1 9  the 
Secretary  of  the  Treasury  was  compelled  to  borrow  $500,000  to 
meet  a  foreign  debt  of  that  amount;  and  at  that  moment  there 
was  $22,000,000  surplus  funds  in  the  treasury,  out  of  which  he 
could  not  cull  enough  current  funds  to  meet  the  demand. 

In  obedience  to  a  resolution  of  Congress,  adopted  January  7, 
1 841,  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  made  a  report,  showing  that 
from  1789  to  1841  three  hundred  and  ninety-five  banks  had  be- 
come insolvent,  and  that  the  aggregate  loss  sustained  by  the 
government  and  people  of  the  United  States  was  $365,451,497. 
The  report  also  showed  that  the  total  amount  paid  by  the  peo- 
ple of  the  United  States  to  the  banks,  for  the  use  of  them,  dur- 
ing the  ten  years  preceding  1841,  amounted  to  the  enormous 
sum  of  $282,000,000. 

Startling  as  these  figures  are,  they  fall  far  short  of  exhibiting 
the  magnitude  of  the  losses  which  this  system  occasioned.  The 
financial  journals  of  that  period  agree  in  the  following  estimate 
of  the  losses  occasioned  by  the  revulsion  of  1837. 


CURRENCY  AND  THE  BANKS.  5^9 

On  bank  circulation  and  deposits 1 54,000,000 

Bank  capital,  failed  and  depreciated 248,000,000 

State  stock  depreciated 100,000,000 

Company  stock  depreciated 80,000,000 

Real  estate  depreciated 300,000,000 

Total $  782,000,000 

The  State  bank  system  was  a  chaos  of  ruin,  in  which  the  busi- 
ness of  the  country  was  again  and  again  ingulfed.  The  people 
rejoice  that  it  has  been  swept  away,  and  they  will  not  consent 
to  its  re-establishment.  In  its  place  we  have  the  national  bank 
system,  based  on  the  bonds  of  the  United  States,  and  sharing 
the  safety  and  credit  of  the  government.  The  notes  of  these 
banks  are  made  secure :  first,  by  a  deposit  of  government  bonds 
worth  at  least  ten  per  cent  more  than  the  whole  value  of  the 
notes ;  secondly,  by  a  paramount  lien  on  all  the  assets  of  the 
banks ;  thirdly,  by  the  personal  liability  of  all  the  shareholders 
to  an  amount  equal  to  the  capital  they  hold ;  and  fourthly,  by 
the  absolute  guaranty  of  the  government  to  redeem  them  at  the 
national  treasury  if  the  banks  fail  to  do  so.  Instead  of  seven 
thousand  different  varieties  of  notes,  as  in  the  State  system,  we 
have  now  but  ten  varieties,  each  uniform  in  character  and  ap- 
pearance. Like  our  flag,  they  bear  the  stamp  of  nationality, 
and  are  honored  in  every  part  of  the  Union.^  Now,  I  do  not 
speak  for  the  banks ;  I  have  no  personal  interest  in  them ;  but 
I  speak  for  the  interests  of  trade  and  the  business  of  the  coun- 
try, which  demand  that  no  measure  shall  pass  this  House  which 
may  rudely  shock  them. 

The  $25,000,000  of  circulation  which  is  to  be  redistributed, 
and  the  redistribution  of  which  is  not  likely  soon  to  be  required, 
will  be  taken,  when  needed,  from  States  having  a  great  surplus. 
About  $9,000,000  will  come  from  the  banks  of  New  York  that 
have  over  $1,000,000  of  circulation  each,  and  the  balance  will 
come  from  about  eighty-four  banks  in  three  other  States,  which 
will  still  have  a  great  excess  over  their  proper  proportion.  I 
shall  reserve  for  a  later  period  in  this  discussion  my  remarks  on 
the  funding  provisions  of  the  bill  embodied  in  the  third,  fourth, 
and  fifth  sections. 

»  The  above  paragraphs,  in  great  part,  are  reproduced  from  the  Uer  &cas- 
sion  of  American  Banking,  found  in  the  speech  delivered  at  MoaBtTcno%  Ohio, 
August  14,  1869.     See  antCy  pp.  491  et  seq. 


CURRENCy  AND   THE  BANKS. 


\ 


Accompanying  Mr.  Garfield's  pamphlet  edition  of  this  Speech  were  two 
tables.  Only  the  totals  of  his  groups  of  Slates  are  here  given,  not  the  States 
one  by  one. 


Bants  fl/ 

Umi  in  the  UnUtd  Statti 

rt«V  Ca/rti/  a-i/  Cirmiatian. 

Pupul.- 

SdM  Buk> 

0..8*-. 

N.iioD»l  Bala,  Oa.  1, 185.^ 

No. 

CapiBl. 

0«uU.™, 

No. 

C*i«ai. 

Cireuliiion. 

Eawera  Suia  '   .  .  . 

3.ui,iaj 

5o5 

»"J.7oS.7oS 

»4..«...aj 

*9. 

».SO,B33.6j> 

».04,S0M'fl 

Middl.  5»tE.  «... 

S..sS,,so 

48(1 

ito,o3S,3fiO 

(J.  871.81' 

sa? 

.9J.J04"W 

,rt,B.7.40. 

Southttn  Snta  '   .  . 

4.44°,]S9 

■47 

i6,lSi,M. 

J9.!SJ,7t" 

4; 

B,ll66.6« 

54>q.lia 

b/Mpfi-fi 

U) 

64«i.6i. 

Jt.W*! 

S6 

>J.i]f>b» 

*'»^'S 

Wuum  Suu>>  .  .  . 

7.939.U1 

3>9 

16.576,611 

i»^7.c.!6 

4lt 

6j,IOJ,J« 

Diitricl  ol  C.ilumbi* 
JUd  Tenitoriei"  . 

Graod  laUl    ... 

l6a,j9S 

« 

.pOSftOK 

..*,-,. 

J..«4-8g 

■,6<^ 

110,7™.!)!  J 

™,.;j,iS, 

1,0., 

4]].i6j.&ic 

'W.Mj.'i? 

Spc6=i.b»fai=.96,       . 

*»J.67irfTO               1 

if  Appa-lienmntt  b/  CireuUmfn  iirij.-r  iMf  ijeiiUrtg  Laai,  lie  fratnt  m 
Circuiatimt  of  the  difftrml  Slates  and  Terriloriei,  and  viMal  it  woutd  it  under  the  Pro- 
vitima  of  theftHding  Bill. 


^^- 

CircuUlLon. 

*SH™ 

Amount  of 
CircullliHi 

by  (h.  BilL 

J^^ 

under  (In 

uiddi>s»L«i . .. 

SoulhunSBtH >  .  . 

WnlEfflStilHi   .  . 

Dinriclof  Columbl. 
indTtmloriHi    . 

Cnnii  lotJ .  .  . 

ttS,5aS.<EB 
94,918,)" 

6o,r96,JOO 
'.M4-S~ 

r.a4.S<>9.9>9 

.*B17,401 

s,  919,  no 

9.74S.'4o 
91,101,311 

fio,,;o9,9>9 
ii6,Si7,4D. 

J9,008.(™ 

S8,«J3,™ 
6..94t,6., 

.,.83,57. 

*W.J*=.8J4 
..7,646,887 
4S,Jt9,o6o 
68,7.7.!j« 

».  4.6,7" 

»I5,H9,045 

»8o,44. 

19.7S9.7]] 

>9,74CV7.1 

840,69" 

>99,96S,1«> 

.99,789,88. 

394...1.10, 

J,4,..l.S.l 

•i-"^ 

I19,t.),6l> 

1  Maine,  New  Hampshire,  Vermotlt,  Massachiuetts,  Rhode  IsUnd,  Connecticut 

*  New  York.  New  Jersey,  Pennsylvania,  Delaware,  Maryland. 

»  Virginia,  West  Virginia,  North  Carolina,  Soulh  Carolina,  Georgia,  Florida. 

*  Alabama.  Arkansas,  Louisiana,  Mississippi,  Tennessee,  Kentucky,  Missouri.  Teias- 

*  Ohio,  Illinois,  Indiana,  Oregon,  Michigan,  Wisconsin,  Minnesota,  Iowa,  Kansas, 
Nevada,  Nebraska. 

■  The  Territories  are  Colorado,  Utah,  Montana,  and  Idaho,  with  the  addition  in  (he 
t^r^mi  t.,hi^  ri  n.ilinta.  New  Mexico,  and  Washington. 


CURRENCY  AND  THE   BANKS.^ 

SPEECH  DELIVERED  IN  THE  HOUSE  OF  REPRESENTATIVES, 

June  15,  1870. 


The  House  of  Representatives  never  came  to  a  direct  vote  upon  the 
bill  discussed  in  the  speech  of  June  7,  1870.  June  8,  pending  the  ques- 
tion, "  Shall  the  bill  be  engrossed  and  read  a  third  time  now?  "  the  House 
adjourned,  the  effect  of  which  was  to  send  the  bill  to  the  bottom  of  all 
the  bills  on  the  Speaker's  table.  Here  it  was  impossible  to  reach  it  that 
session.  But  the  Senate  had  sent  a  bill  to  the  House,  February  3,  en- 
titied,  "  An  Act  to  provide  a  National  Currency  of  Loan  Notes,  and  to 
equalize  the  Distribution  of  Circulating  Notes,"  and  this  bill  had  been 
referred  to  the  Committee  on  Banking  and  Currency.  June  9th,  Mr. 
Garfield  got  the  committee  together,  and  procured  action  authorizing 
him  to  report  the  Senate  bill,  with  an  amendment  in  the  nature  of  a  sub- 
stitute. This  substitute  contained  the  main  features  of  the  earlier  House 
bill.  Thus  the  whole  subject  was  again  brought  before  the  House.  Pend- 
ing this  second  bill,  Mr.  Garfield  delivered  the  following  speech,  which 
is  here  somewhat  abridged. 


MR.  SPEAKER,  —  Few  measures  have  had  a  more  eventful 
career  in  the  House  of  Representatives  than  the  one  that 
is  now  about  to  meet  the  fate  of  a  final  vote.  Two  days  and  an 
evening  of  stormy  debate,  and  two  more  days  of  voting  and 
manoeuvring  for  and  against  it,  have  brought  the  bill  to  this 
hour  in  precisely  the  same  shape  in  which  it  left  the  hands  of 
the  Committee  on  Banking  and  Currency.  I  shall  not  weary 
the  House  to-day  with  an  elaborate  speech,  nor  shall  I  reiter- 
ate any  of  the  arguments  hitherto  advanced,  demonstrating  the 
necessity  of  passing  this  bill.     I  will  first  state  the  condition  of 

1  Mr.  Garfield  gave  this  speech  the  title  of  "  The  Currency  Debate." 


572 


CURRENCY  AND   THE  BANKS. 


the  bill,  the  character  of  its  leading  provisions  and  of  the  pcnd* 
ing  amendments,  and  then  review  briefly  some  points  made  in 
the  debate  since  I  last  addressed  the  House. 

This  substitute  consists  of  four  sections.  She  first  section 
authorizes  the  issue  of  $g5,ocx>,ooo  of  national  bank  notes  to 
banking  associations  organized  or  to  be  organized  in  States  that 
have  less  than  their  proper  proportion,  under  the  laws  now 
regulating  the  distribution  of  national  currency.  It  limits  the 
circulation  of  any  new  bank  to  $500,000;  and  provides  that,  if 
one  of  the  States  having  a  deficiency  shall  not  take  tlie  full 
amount  to  which  it  is  entitled,  other  States  in  deficiency  may 
take  the  balance.     That  is  the  substance  of  the  first  section. 

The  second  section  provides  that  on  the  first  day  of  every 
month  there  shall  be  reported  to  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury 
the  amount  of  notes  which  has  been  issued  under  this  act  dur- 
ing the  previous  month ;  and  that  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury 
shall  immediately  redeem  and  cancel  an  equivalent  amount  of 
the  three  per  cent  certificates  until  $45,500,000  shall  have  been 
cancelled. 

Thus  the  inflation  of  the  currency  will  proceed  for  one  montli, 
at  the  end  of  which  time  the  cancelling  of  an  equivalent  amount 
of  three  per  cent  certificates  will  take  place.  This  process  is  to 
continue  until  the  $45,500,000  of  the  three  per  cent  certificates 
is  exhausted.  As  the  bill  stands,  the  process  of  issue  and  can- 
cellation will  then  go  on  beyond  the  amount  of  the  three  per 
cents,  until  $95,000,000  of  national  bank  notes  shall  have  been 
issued,  and  $39,500,000  of  legal  tenders,  in  addition  to  the 
$45,500,000  of  three  per  cents  is  cancelled. 

At  this  point  the  committee  allowed  a  member  of  the  com- 
mittee, the  gentleman  from  Illinois,'  to  off'er  an  amendment, 
which  strikes  out  tlie  clause  requiring  the  cancellation  of 
$39,500,000  of  greenbacks.  If  the  House  shall  agree  to  that 
amendment,  the  second  section,  in  connection  with  the  first, 
will  authorize  the  issue  of  $95,000,000  of  national  bank  notes, 
and  the  cancellation  of  $45,500,000  of  three  per  cents.  This 
will  leave,  according  to  the  estimation  of  some,  an  inflation  of 
$50,000,000;  according  to  others,  not  so  much ;  but  according 
to  all,  an  increase  to  some  extent. 

Mr.  Cox,  I  would  like  to  inquire  of  the  gentleman  what,  in  his  ju(^- 
meot,  would  be  the  amount  of  the  inflation  under  the  substitute  of  the 
1  Mr.  Judd. 


CURRENCY  AND   THE  BANKS.  573 

committee,  and  what  would  be  the  effect  as  regards  inflation  of  the  amend- 
ment of  the  gentleman  from  Illinois. 

Two  different  calculations  have  been  made,  which  I  will  give. 
Ninety-five  million  dollars  of  national  bank  notes  issued  to  the 
banks  will  require  an  average  of  twenty  per  cent  of  the  same 
amount  of  greenbacks  to  be  locked  up  in  their  vaults  as  a  re- 
serve to  secure  the  circulation:  twenty  per  cent  of  $95,000,000 
is  $19,000,000.  It  cannot  be  said,  therefore,  that  there  would 
be  an  inflation  to  the  full  amount  of  the  difference  between 
$95,000,000  and  $45,500,000.  It  would  be  an  inflation  to  the 
full  amount  of  $95,000,000,  according  to  that  calculation,  less 
$19,000,000,  or  an  increase  of  $31,500,000. 

Mr.  Judd.  I  ask  the  gentleman  in  this  connection  to  explain  how 
the  place  of  the  three  per  cent  certificates  is  to  be  supplied. 

I  will  do  so.  The  three  per  cent  certificates,  with  the  excep- 
tion of  two  or  three  millions  of  them,  have  been  held  and  are 
held  as  bank  reserves  in  place  of  greenbacks.  Therefore,  when 
redeemed  and  cancelled,  their  place  must  be  supplied  by  the 
actual  deposit  of  greenbacks,  dollar  for  dollar,  in  their  place. 
Therefore,  to  cancel  the  $45,500,000  of  three  per  cents  is  a 
direct  contraction  of  the  currency  by  just  that  amount.  So 
the  issue  of  $95,000,000  of  national  bank  notes  will  be  an  infla- 
tion of  $95,000,000  of  money,  minus  $45,500,000  of  three  per 
cents,  minus  $19,000,000  of  reserves  required  by  it,  which  two 
together,  subtracted  from  $95,000,000,  leave  $31,500,000  as  the 
amount  of  inflation.  This  is  one  view.  The  other  is  that  taken 
by  my  colleague  on  the  committee,^  who  insisted  in  his  speech 
that  we  must  make  allowance  also  for  the  reserves  required  to 
secure  deposits ;  because  the  deposits  of  the  new  banks  will  re- 
quire also  an  average  of  twenty  per  cent  of  greenbacks  locked 
up  as  reserves  to  secure  such  deposits.  As  a  rule,  the  deposits 
exce^  in  amount  the  total  circulation.  If  we  take  the  amount 
of  deposits  in  the  new  banks  at  $100,000,000,  and  consider  the 
reserves  required  to  secure  them  as  a  contraction,  we  must  add 
$20,000,000  more  to  the  amount  of  virtual  contraction,  thus 
leaving  the  resulting  inflation  at  $11,500,000.  I  give  these  as 
the  two  estimates.  I  think  that  the  deposits  and  banking  facili- 
ties developed  by  the  bill  will  more  than  balance  the  contraction 
caused  by  the  reserves  to  secure  circulation  and  deposits.     But 

1  Mr.  Lynch. 


CUSRBNCY  AND   THE  BANKS. 

as  these  new  banks  are  to  be  distributed  more  in  the  rural  dis- 
tricts than  in  the  cities,  it  is  presumed  that  tlieir  deposits  will 
not  be  so  great  as  the  average  of  all  the  banks.  That  concludes 
all  I  desire  to  say  concerning  the  second  section, 

Mk.  Burchard.  I  aak  the  gentleman  from  Ohio  if  there  would  ne- 
cessarily be  an  mcrease  of  deposits  by  the  creation  of  national  banks. 
Would  not  tliese  national  banks  take  the  place  of  the  private  bankers  and 
brokers,  and  would  there  not  be  a  transfer  of  the  deposits  from  the  biter 
to  these  new  banking  associations?  I  ask  him  also  whether  these  private 
bankers  do  not  keep  an  average  reserve  of  depasits  for  their  business 
equal  to  that  required  by  law  for  these  banking  associations. 

I  do  not  suppose  there  will  be  so  large  an  increase  as  though 
there  were  now  no  private  banks ;  but  there  will  doubtless  be 
an  increase  of  deposits  from  private  hoards,  and  from  merchants 
who  have  not  made  local  deposits  before, 

Mr.  LAWBE.VCE.  In  the  first  section  of  the  amendment  I  find  these 
words  :  "  The  bonds  deposited  with  the  Treasurer  of  the  United  Stales  to 
secure  the  additional  circulating  notes  herein  authorized  sliall  be  of  any 
description  of  bonds  of  the  United  States  bearing  interest  in  coin."  Would 
it  not  1«  better,  in  proposing  to  organize  new  banks,  to  require  them  to 
deposit  such  bonds  as  may  hereafter  be  authorized,  such  txinds  as  may 
be  provided  for  in  a  funding  bill  at  this  session  ? 

My  colleague  will  recollect  that  as  this  bill  was  first  intro- 
duced it  provided  four  and  a  half  per  cent  bonds,  and  required 
the  new  banks  to  secure  their  circulation  by  depositing  those 
bonds ;  but  in  view  of  the  fact  that  the  Committee  of  Ways  and 
Means  had  lately  introduced  a  funding  bill,  we  did  not  consider 
it  necessary  to  retain  that  provision  here.  When  the  funding 
bill  comes  up,  the  whole  question  will  be  open  for  discussion. 
We  provide  here  for  any  bonds  bearing  interest  in  gold  now  in 
existence,  or  which  may  hereafter  be  authorized.  It  would  be 
unjust  to  the  new  banks  not  to  put  them  upon  the  same  ground 
and  grant  them  the  same  privileges  as  the  old  banks.  It  would 
be  a  class  of  vassal  banks,  with  unequal  privileges.  I  am  sure 
such  an  injustice  would  create  ill-feeling  between  the  different 
sections  of  the  country. 

Mb.  Hooper.  I  understood  the  gentleman  to  say  that  twenty  per 
cent  of  the  amount  deposited  in  these  t)anks  would  have  to  be  reserved 
in  greenbacks,  and  therefore  this  would  in  effect  be  so  much  contrac- 
tion ;  and  yet  he  states  that  probably  all  of  these  new  banks  would  be 


CURRENCY  AND   THE  BANKS.  575 

located  in  the  rural  districts.  The  banks  in  the  country  are  required  to 
reserve  only  fifteen  per  cent ;  and  of  that  amount  three  fifths  may  consist 
of  balances  due  from  other  banks. 

The  gentleman  will  remember  that  not  all  of  these  banks  will 
be  located  in  the  country,  though  a  great  majority  will  be.  Of 
course  the  cities  of  the  West  and  South  will  receive  a  large  share 
of  this  increase  of  circulation.  And  in  banks  in  all  the  redemp- 
tion cities  the  reserves  must  be  twenty-five  per  cent.  Twenty 
per  cent  on  the  whole  is  a  fair  average. 

Mr.  Hooper.  I  am  under  the  impression  that  the  required  reserve  in 
these  banks  would  not  exceed  ten  per  cent  in  greenbacks. 

I  think  I  have  understated  the  total  amount  of  deposits.  I 
think  they  would  amount  to  more  than  $100,000,000,  and  that 
would  probably  counterbalance  the  statement  of  the  gentle- 
man. 

The  third  section  of  the  substitute  provides  that,  after  the 
$95,000,000  shall  have  been  issued,  if  there  be  still  a  further 
demand  for  national  bank  circulation  in  States  now  having  a 
deficiency,  there  may  be  withdrawn  an  amount  not  exceeding 
$25,000,000  from  States  in  the  East  having  an  excess  of  circula- 
tion ;  that  amount  to  be  withdrawn  from  two  classes  of  banks. 
First,  from  those  having  an  outstanding  circulation  of  over 
$1,000,000  each,  the  excess  over  $1,000,000  is  to  be  withdrawn. 
That  would  take  about  $9,750,000  from  banks  in  Boston,  New 
York,  and  Baltimore.  The  balance  of  the  $25,000,000  will 
be  withdrawn  from  banks  having  a  circulation  of  more  than 
$300,000  each,  in  States  having  an  excess  of  circulation.  That 
will  be  taken  from  eighty-four  banks  situated  in  Massachusetts, 
Connecticut,  and  Rhode  Island.  If,  after  the  $95,000,000  has 
been  distributed,  there  shall  be  a  call  for  more  bank  circulation 
in  States  now  having  less  than  their  proper  proportion,  then 
$25,000,000  will  be  withdrawn  from  two  classes  of  banks  in 
the  manner  that  I  have  suggested. 

The  fourth  section  of  the  bill  provides  that  any  bank  in  a 
State  now  having  an  excess  of  circulation  may  remove,  with  all  its 
rights,  privileges,  and  obligations  unimpaired,  into  a  State  where 
there  is  a  deficiency.  This  section  is  precisely  as  it  passed  the 
Senate.  It  would  be  compelled  to  locate  with  all  the  condi- 
tions and  under  all  the  guards  and  obligations  that  surround 
other  national  banks.     We  are  frequently  providing  by  special 


S76  CUHRBNCY  AND   THE  BANKS. 

act  for  the  removal  of  some  bank  to  another  location.  This 
section  permits  a  class  of  banks,  under  peculiar  circumstances 
and  within  limited  restrictions,  to  change  their  location. 

Mr.  Benton.  By  the  fourth  section  of  the  Senate  bill  free  banking 
is  provided  upon  condition  of  depositing  national  bonds,  and  redeeming 
tiieir  circulation  in  gold.  Is  there  anything  in  the  substitute  correspond- 
ing to  that  provision?     I  am  in  favor  of  it. 

In  consequence  of  objections  urged  in  the  House,  and  not 
because  the  committee  were  willing  to  leave  those  provisions 
out,  they  have  been  omitted  from  the  bill.  I  am  myself  in  favor 
of  free  banking  on  a  gold  basis;  and  in  the  report  of  a  com- 
mittee of  conference  between  the  two  houses  we  may  have  an 
opportunity  to  test  the  sense  of  the  House  on  that  point. 

I  have  now  stated  in  brief  the  provisions  of  the  substitute 
reported  by  the  committee,  and  the  amendment  oifered  by  the 
gentleman  from  Illinois.^ 

I  wish  next  to  call  the  attention  of  the  House  for  a  moment 
to  three  amendments  which  are  pending  as  additional  sections. 
If  the  substitute  of  the  committee,  with  or  without  the  amend- 
ment of  the  gentleman  from  Illinois,  shall  prevail,  the  three 
amendments  ofTered  as  additional  sections  will  come  up  for 
action.  The  first,  which  is  proposed  by  the  gentleman  from 
Iowa,'  provides  that  no  bank  shall  pay  interest  on  deposits  made 
by  another  bank.  I  will  not  stop  to  argue  this  matter ;  but  it 
will  be  remembered  that  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  in  his 
annual  report,*  calls  attention  to  the  fact  that  the  banks  of  New 
York  are  now  receiving  interest  on  the  deposits  of  other  national 
banks,  and  recommends  that  the  practice  be  forbidden.  The 
Western  banks  send  their  surplus  deposits  to  New  York,  where 
they  receive  interest  upon  them ;  and  thus  the  country  is  drained 

'  Mr.  Jutltl.  *  Mr.  Allison. 

'  The  New  York  banks  were  compelled  to  loan  "  on  call  "  those  deposits  on  ntiicb 
thejpaid  interest.  The  Comptroller  of  the  Currency  said;  "  If,  then,  New  York 
banks  pay  interest  on  these  deposits,  they  must,  oE  course,  use  them,  and,  as  the^ 
are  payable  on  demand,  they  piust  be  loaned  on  call.  Call  loans,  as  a  rule,  art 
made  to  brokers  and  operators  in  stocks  and  gold.  Men  engaged  in  trade  cannot 
ordinarily  afford  to  borrow  money  which  they  may  be  called  upon  to  refund  at  an 

hour's  notice Call  loans  are  a  necessity  when  interest  is  paid  on  depositi. 

Competition  for  the  accounts  of  country  banks  has  led  to  the  payment  o(  interest 
....  The  fact  that  the  reserves  of  the  country  are  hawked  on  the  street  and  ate 
tendered  and  used  for  speculation  is  sufficient  ground  for  interference  of  law."  — 
MetK^^  and  Documents,  {Washington,  1B70,)  p.  77. 


CURRENCY  AND  THE  BANKS.  S77 

of  currency  much  more  than  it  would  be  if  such  interest  were 
not  allowed.  Without  discussing  the  question,  I  simply  call 
attention  to  the  purpose  to  be  accomplished  by  the  amendment 
of  the  gentleman  from  Iowa. 

The  next  amendment  is  that  offered  by  my  colleague  on  the 
committee.^  It  is,  that  when  the  banks  receive  the  gold  on  their 
coupons  from  the  bonds  now  deposited  in  the  Treasury  to  secure 
their  circulation,  the  gold  or  gold  certificates  thus  accruing  shall 
be  placed  in  the  vaults  of  the  banks  as  a  part  of  their  reserve. 
Tliis  would  have  the  effect  of  strengthening  the  banks  prepara- 
tory to  resumption,  and  also  of  liberating  greenbacks,  and  to 
that  extent  would  increase  the  active  circulation  of  the  country. 
It  may  be  said,  on  the  other  hand,  that  to  lock  up  this  large 
amount  of  gold  would  tend  to  increase  the  premium.  But  it 
seems  to  me  that  the  provision  is  a  wise  one,  as  tending  to 
strengthen  the  banks  and  prepare  them  to  redeem  their  notes 
in  gold. 

The  proposition  next  submitted  is  the  amendment  of  my 
colleague  on  the  committee,  the  gentleman  from  Indiana,^  to 
issue  $44,000,000  of  greenbacks  to  replace  the  three  per  cent 
certificates.  I  hope  we  shall  not  authorize  a  further  inflation 
by  the  issue  of  $44,000,000  additional  greenbacks.  This  propo- 
sition in  its  naked  form  we  have  voted  down  this  morning  by  a 
decided  majority,  and  I  hope  it  will  be  voted  down  again. 

I  now  call  attention  to  the  general  course  of  debate  on  this 
bill,  and  to  some  of  the  doctrines  announced. 

Our  Democratic  friends  do  not  seem  to  be  ready  to  lead  the 
country  into  green  pastures  and  beside  the  still  waters  of  financial 
peace.  The  distinguished  gentleman  from  New  York,  my  col- 
league on  the  Committee  on  Banking  and  Currency,^  said :  — 

"  It  is  my  deliberate  judgment,  after  much  study,  that  all  your  meas- 
ures, even  your  most  matured,  are  mere  makeshifts,  cowardly,  timid, 
halting  devices  to  avoid  the  one  *  heroic  remedy,*  which  this  Congress 
has  not  had  the  skill  or  courage  to  apply,  to  wit,  resume  specie  pay- 
ments. You  owe  it  to  the  people  to  give  them  back  their  gold  and 
silver." 

This  bold  declaration  roused  the  enthusiasm  of  some  of  his 
Jacksonian  and  "  Old  Bullion  "  colleagues ;  and  a  little  scene, 
touching  and  dramatic,  took  place  in  the  neighborhood  of  the 
orator.     I  read  again  from  the  record :  — 

1  Mr.  Burchard.  *  Mr.  Coborn.  »  Mr.  Cox. 

VOL.  I.  37 


578  CURRENCY  AND  THE  BANKS. 

**  Mr.  Cox.  Ah !  I  see  that  PennsyWania  has  its  ear  open.  [Judge 
Woodward  bowed  to  the  speaker;  and  Mr.  Getz  of  Pennsyhania  ap- 
proached the  seat  of  Mr.  Cox,  presenting  him  two  gold  twenty-doUar 
pieces.] 

''  Mr.  Getz.  Here  is  the  Democratic  conency,  which  Pennsylvania 
loves  and  longs  after. 

''  Mr.  Cox.  I  hear  its  chink.  I  see  its  beauty.  I  know  it  is  pre- 
cious. It  reminds  me  of  the  better  day  of  the  republic,  when  the 
people  knew  what  they  had  to  '  deal  with.'  "  ^ 

But  this  sweet  vision  of  peace  and  unity  vanished  when  my 
Democratic  colleague  from  the  Mount  Vernon  district'  took  the 
floor.  Turning  to  his  specie-paying  friend  from  New  York,  he 
'  said,  scornfully,  ^'  Sir,  this  talk  of  returning  to  a  specie  basis 
while  this  debt  hangs  over  us  is  a  mere  cheat,  set  afloat  for  the 
express  purpose  of  deceiving  the  people."  Rising  in  his  noble 
rage  above  party»  he  denounced  not  only  Congress,  but  the  late 
Democratic  Administration,  for  having  reduced  the  currency  in 
1866  and  onward.  He  said:  ''  And  all  this,  sir,  has  been  done 
in  the  interest  of  banker  and  bondholder,  and  to  the  injury  of 
the  people.  Why?  Because  scarcity  of  currency  makes  high 
interest  and  high  rents,  with  low  wages  for  the  workman  and 
low  prices  for  the  farmer." 

Let  us  all  stand  rebuked  for  not  having  discovered  before  this 
how  cruelly  the  people  were  wronged  in  having  the  volume  of 
their  paper  money  reduced  in  1866,  when  its  whole  amount  was 
only  $900,ooo,ocx) ! 

But  my  colleague  was  not  content  with  rebuking  evil.  He 
determined  to  show  himself  the  chief  champion  of  the  people, 
by  relieving  them  of  one  of  their  most  troublesome  necessities, 
that  of  paying  taxes.  He  therefore  introduced  a  bill,  which  the 
House  voted  on  yesterday,  and  with  singular  blindness  voted 
down  by  a  vote  of  about  five  to  one.  His  bill  recites  in  its 
second  section  the  various  philanthropic  objects  which  its  author 
had  in  view,  among  which  is  **  to  provide  the  people  the  means 
of  paying  their  taxes."  Generous  man !  How  they  will  rise 
up  and  bless  him  when  they  learn  of  his  noble  bequest !  His 
method  of  doing  this  is  to  set  the  printing-presses  of  the  Treas- 
ury agoing,  and  print  off  $500,000,000  of  greenbacks.  Most 
people  are  so  simple  as  to  suppose  that,  if  the  Treasury  should 
issue  greenback  notes,  the  Secretary  would  pay  them  out  to 

1  Congressional  Globe,  June  7,  1870^  Appendix,  p.  439.  *  Mr.  Morgan. 


CURRENCY  AND   THE  BANKS.  $79 

the  creditors  of  the  government ;  but  it  would  seem,  from  the 
second  section,  that  the  $500,000,000  to  be  manufactured  by 
my  colleague  will  be  distributed  to  those  who  owe  debts  to  the 
government  in  the  form  of  taxes.  I  suggest  whether  it  would 
not  be  better  to  cancel  the  taxes  directly,  and  thus  save  the 
expense  of  printing  and  presenting  greenbacks  to  the  people, 
and  giving  them  the  trouble  to  pay  the  gift  back  into  the 
Treasury. 

He  proposes  to  abolish  the  national  banks,  and  declares  that 
this  feature  of  his  bill  alone  will  save  over  $20,000,000  now 
annually  paid  as  interest  on  the  bonds  deposited  by  the  banks 
as  security  for  their  circulation.  I  am  puzzled  to  know  how 
my  colleague  makes  this  out,  and  still  more  puzzled  to  know 
how  the  abolition  of  the  banks  will  abolish  the  bonds  held  for 
their  circulation.  Having  begun  this  work  of  abolishing,  why 
does  he  not  take  a  step  further,  and  abolish  all  the  bonds, 
whether  held  by  the  banks  or  by  citizens?  His  philanthropy 
ought  to  take  a  wider  scope  and  accomplish  this  full  measure 
of  good  for  the  people,  and  not  stint  his  charity. 

The  courage  and  gallantry  of  my  colleague  is  most  touching. 
He  revives  the  exploded  theory  of  his  distinguished  friend, 
Mr.  Pendleton ;  and  in  his  hands  it  blossoms  again  into  full  life 
and  vigor.  I  had  supposed  that  the  Pendletonian  theory  of 
finance  had  perished  with  the  defeat  of  its  author  in  the  New 
York  Convention  of  1868.  If  not,  the  late  decision  of  the 
Supreme  Court  must  have  finished  it.  The  Democratic  State 
Convention  that  recently  met  at  Columbus,  Ohio,  lacked  either 
the  will  or  the  courage  to  revive  or  indorse  that  theory.  The 
arguments  of  my  colleague  and  of  the  gentleman  from  Indiana  ^ 
come  up  to  us  like  voices  from  the  tomb.  These  men  still 
follow  their  old  leader,  and  are  the  champions  of  the  same 
greenbacks  which  Mr.  Pendleton  denounced  in  this  chamber  in 
the  most  unmeasured  terms.^ 

It  is  manifest  to  my  mind,  that  out  of  this  remarkable  pressure 
for  more  paper  money  have  arisen  nearly  all  the  crude  and 
conflicting  opinions  on  financial  questions  with  which  Congress 
and  the  country  have  been  afflicted  during  the  last  five  years. 

It  is  an  incontestable  fact,  which  all  advocates  of  inflation  are 
compelled  to  meet,  that  we  now  have  a  paper  currency  one 
hundred  and  fifty  per  cent  greater  in  volume  than  the  country 

1  Mr.  Holman.  *  See  Speech  on  "  The  Currency,"  anle  p.  308. 


58o  CURRENCY  AND   THE  BANKS. 

had  in  i860,  a  year  of  general  prosperity,  when  free  banking 
prevailed  in  many  States,  and  the  banks  were  issuing  all  the 
notes  they  could  push  into  circulation.  I  have  observed  that, 
when  men  have  determined  on  a  given  course  of  conduct,  the 
reasons  alleged  therefor  are  frequeatly  afterthoughts,  and  formed 
no  part  of  their  original  ground  of  action.  For  example,  what 
man,  whose  course  of  action  was  not  already  determined,  would 
defend  a  further  issue  of  inconvertible  paper  money  by  such  a 
doctrine  as  this  avowed  by  the  gentleman  fro m^  Indiana.^  He 
says :  — 

"The  gentleman  who  draws  a  distinction  between  money  and  the 
greenback  as  a  promise  to  pay,  merely  plays  upon  words.  The  stamp  of 
current  value  on  gold  or  silver  is  regulated  by  law,  its  value  is  fixed  by  law ; 
and,  unless  restrained  by  the  Constitution,  the  law-making  power  of  this 
country  can  fix  that  monetary  value,  the  quality  of  legal  tender,  as  well 
upon  paper  as  upon  gold  and  silver.  In  the  one  instance  as  well  as  in  the 
other,  the  representative  value  is  fixed  by  law,  and  this  is  clearly  true  while 
gold  and  silver  are  the  common  representatives  of  value  throughout  the 
world ;  but  as  lawful  money  in  the  United  States,  gold  and  silver  and  the 
United  States  note  alike  depend  on  the  law  of  the  land  for  their  value."  * 

If  this  doctrine  be  true,  there  can  be  no  such  thing  as  an 
absurdity.  If  this  be  true,  then  an  ounce  of  silver  coined  into 
fifty  pieces  will  have  five  times  the  value  of  an  ounce  coined 
into  ten  pieces.  A  piece  of  gold  stamped  into  the  shape  of 
a  half-eagle  may  be  worth  twice  as  much  as  the  same  piece 
stamped  into  the  shape  of  a  spoon.  My  friend  is  so  dazzled 
with  the  **  guinea  stamp  "  that  he  forgets  that  the  gold  is  the 
money  *'  for  a*  that." 

Could  anything  but  a  predetermined  purpose  to  defend,  main- 
tain, and  increase  our  irredeemable  paper  money,  lead  so  able 
and  distinguished  a  statesman  as  the  gentleman  from  Pennsyl- 
vania^ to  say,  as  he  did  the  other  day,  concerning  the  greenback 
currency:  *'  Beyond  the  sea,  in  foreign  lands,  it  fortunately  is 
not  money ;  but,  sir,  when  have  we  had  such  a  long  and  un- 
broken career  of  prosperity  in  business  as  since  we  adopted  this 
non-exportable  currency?" 

It  is  reported  of  an  Englishman  who  was  wrecked  on  a 
strange  shore,  that,  wandering  along  the  coast,  he  came  to  a 
gallows  with  a  victim  hanging  upon  it,  and  that  he  fell  on  his 

>  Mr.  Holman.  '  Congressional  Globe,  June,  8,  1870,  p.  4237. 

«  Mr.  Kelley. 


CURRENCY  AND   THE  BANKS.  581 

knees  and  thanked  God  that  he  at  last  beheld  a  sign  of  civiliza- 
tion. But  this  is  the  first  time  I  ever  heard  a  financial  phi- 
losopher express  his  gratitude  that  we  have  a  currency  of  such 
bad  repute  that  other  nations  will  not  receive  it ;  he  is  thankful 
that  it  is  not  exportable.  We  have  a  great  many  commodities 
in  such  a  condition  that  they  are  not  exportable.  Mouldy  flour, 
rusty  wheat,  rancid  butter,  damaged  cotton,  addled  eggs,  and 
spoiled  goods  generally  are  not  exportable.  But  it  never  oc- 
curred to  me  to  be  thankful  for  this  putrescence.  It  is  related  in 
a  quaint  German  book  of  humor  that  the  inhabitants  of  Schil- 
deberg,  finding  that  other  towns,  with  more  public  spirit  than 
their  own,  had  erected  gibbets  within  their  precincts,  resolved 
that  the  town  of  Schildeberg  should  also  have  a  gallows ;  and 
one  patriotic  member  of  the.  town  council  offered  a  resolution 
that  the  benefits  of  this  gallows  should  be  reserved  exclusively 
for  the  inhabitants  of  Schildeberg.  The  gentleman  from  Penn- 
sylvania would  reserve  for  our  exclusive  benefit  all  the  bless- 
ings of  a  fluctuating,  uncertain,  and  dishonored  paper  currency. 
In  his  view,  this  irredeemable,  non-exportable  currency  is  so  full 
of  virtue,  that  for  the  want  of  it  California  is  falling  into  decay. 
That  misguided  State  has  seen  fit  to  cling  to  the  money  that  all 
nations  receive,  and  ruin  impends  over  her  golden  shores.  I 
doubt  if  the  business  men  of  California  will  ask  my  friend  to 
prescribe  for  their  financial  maladies. 

Quite  in  keeping  with  the  gentleman's  other  opinions  on  this 
subject  is  the  following.  He  says,  "  The  volume  of  currency 
does  not,  as  has  often  been  asserted,  regulate  the  price  of  com- 
modities.'* According  to  this,  we  have  not  only  a  non-export- 
able currency,  but  one  regulated  by  some  trick  of  magic,  so  as 
to  defy  the  universal  laws  of  value,  of  supply  and  demand,  and 
such  that  neither  the  increase  nor  decrease  of  its  volume  can 
affect  the  price  of  commodities.  Argument  on  such  a  doctrine 
is  useless. 

Mr.  Speaker,  I  regret  to  see  that  it  is  the  manifest  opinion  of 
this  House  that  there  shall  be  an  increase  in  the  volume  of  our 
paper  currency.  As  to  the  amount,  there  are  differences  of 
opinion.  The  figures  range  all  the  way  from  the  $50,0CX),0CX) 
asked  for  in  the  pending  amendment  of  my  colleague  on  the 
committee,^  to  the  boundless  inflation  asked  for  by  the  gentle- 
man from  Illinois,^  who  wishes  to  authorize  the  Secretary  of  the 

1  Mr.  Judd.  •  Mr.  Ingersoll. 


■-r-'^^'^^^T^I^f^^f-^^^^ 


SBa  CURRENCY  AND  TBE  BANKS. 

Treasury  to  issue  what  his  inventive  genius  calls  "  coined  paper 
dollars,"  whatever  that  may  mean.  My  colleague  from  Ohio' 
has  been  kind  enough  to  intimate  to  the  country  what  the  fea- 
tures of  his  inflation  policy  wQl  be.     He  says :  — 

"  I  believe  we  ought  to  have  more  currency,  either  by  new  banks  or 
bonds  at  a  reduced  rate  of  interest,  or  by  an  bsue  of  Sgo,ooo,ooo  of 
greenbacks,  and  then,  when  the  outstanding  five-twenty  bonds  should 
be  funded  at  a  lower  rate  of  interest,  L  would  annually  increase  the 
tiisue  of  currency,  not  by  any  unreasonable  inflation,  but  so  that  the 
ciirrency  should  only  keep  pace  with  the  incjease  of  population  and 
business,  without  any  inflation,  and  then  gradually  come  to  the  resump- 
tion of  specie  payments."  ^ 

This  offers  a  pleasant  prospect  to  the  American  people.  He 
would  have  us  issue  $50,000,000  now,  and  afterward  make  a 
reasonable  increase  annually  to  keep  pace  with  the  increase 
of  population,  and  then  gradually  come  to  specie  payments! 
How  docs  my  colleague  hope  to  accomplish  this?  On  the 
doctrine  that  "  what  goes  up  must  come  down,"  he  must  see 
tliat  tliere  will  come  an  end  to  this  process  of  inflation,  and 
that  his  resumption  will  consist  in  coming  down  from  high  prices 
and  fluctuating  values  to  the  solid  basis  of  real  value,  to  the 
money  of  the  world.  He  tells  us,  in  conclusion,  what  would  be 
the  outcome  of  his  plan  if  continued  to  the  end  of  the  present 
century.     He  says :  — 

"  In  thirty  years  from  this  time  otir  population  will  reach  over  a  hun- 
dred millions,  and,  by  the  means  I  have  suggested,  at  the  dose  of  this 
century  the  whole  bonded  indebtedness  of  the  country  may  be  taken  up 
and  exist  only  in  the  form  of  greenback  currency  receivable  in  payment 
of  all  pubhc  dues. 

"  No  dollar  of  tax  need  be  levied  on  the  people  to  pay  the  principal 
of  the  debt  in  the  mean  time,  but  it  ought  to  be  funded  at  a  lower  rate 
of  interest  as  speedily  as  may  be  found  practicable.  When  the  business 
and  population  of  the  country  will  require  the  whole  debt  to  exist  in  the 
form  of  currency,  if '  a  national  debt '  shall  not  be  '  a  national  Uessiag,' 
it  will  be  an  evil  out  of  which  some  good  at  least  may  come."  ' 

I  ask,  Mr.  Speaker,  whether  this  Congress  will  thus,  by  a  new 
issue  of  paper  money  poured  out  upon  the  country,  check  the 
current  that  for  several  months  has  been  setting  so  strongly 
towards  specie  payments,  —  check  the   downward  tendency  of 

•  Mr.  Lawrence. 

1  Congreulonal  Globe,  June  8, 1870^  p.  4234.  ■  Ibid,  p.  4134. 


I 


CURRENCY  AND,  THE  BANKS.  583 

gold,  —  check  the  gradual  subsidence  to  old  prices  and  solid 
values,  and  thus  plunge  the  country  back  again  into  the  uncer- 
tainty and  confusion  that  are  inseparable  from  a  redundant  and 
inconvertible  paper  currency?  This  House  may  well  heed  the 
words  uttered  by  the  gentleman  from  Pennsylvania  ^  when  he 
said :  — 

"  It  is  shown,  to  my  mind,  that  we  now  have  a  sufficient  volume  of 
circulation  for  all  business  purposes.  I  fear,  for  our  own  prosperity,  too 
much.  We  certainly  have  all  that  is  necessary.  Whenever  in  our  past 
history  we  have  approached  near  our  present  amount,  disaster  and  bank- 
ruptcy have  followed  in  the  wake.  This  state  of  things  occurred,  as  I 
have  shown,  in  the  years  1837-38  and  1857-58."  * 

I  counsel  no  act  that  will  depreciate  the  currency  of  the 
country.  If  this  bill,  as  reported  from  the  committee,  be  passed, 
it  will  not  cause  inflation,  but  it  will  relieve  the  West  and  South, 
and  it  will  remove  from  the  national  banks  one  of  their  most 
odious  features,  the  present  distribution  of  their  capital  and 
circulation.  The  West  and  South  are  in  a  condition  that  can- 
not and  will  not  be  ignored.  They  must  have  relief.  They 
must  have  increased  facilities  for  credit.  We  cannot  give  them 
relief  by  the  passage  of  a  bill  which  will  redistribute  the  circu- 
lation by  taking  it  from  the  East,  and  giving  it  to  the  West  and 
South,  without  a  serious  shock  to  business.  This  House  cannot, 
with  safety  or  honor,  authorize  an  increase  of  the  greenback 
currency.  The  only  safe  and  practical  mode  of  relief  is  to  in- 
crease the  national  bank  circulation.  By  doing  this,  and  get- 
ting rid  of  the  three  per  cents,  as  this  bill  provides,  we  shall 
afford  the  needed  relief. 

^  Air.  RandaU.  '  Congressional  Globe,  Jane  8,  1870^  p.  4225. 


CURRENCY  AND   THE    BANKS. 

SPEECH  DELIVERED  IN  THE  HOUSE  OF  REPRESENTATIVES. 

Junk  29,  187a 


On  June  15,  the  committee's  substitute  for  the  Senate  bill  passed  the 
House.^  The  Senate  refused  to  concur  in  the  substitute,  and  the  subject 
went  to  a  committee  of  conference.  In  submitting  the  conference 
report,  June  28,  Mr.  Garfield  made  a  lengthy  statement  of  the  questions 
at  issue  between  the  two  houses,  and  of  the  compromise  agreed  upon. 
The  next  day  he  made  his  third  speech  upon  the  measure,  now  in  advo- 
cacy of  the  conference  committee's  report.  This  report  failed ;  but  a 
second  one  succeeded,  and  the  President's  signature  made  the  measure 
a  law,  July  12.  The  first  section  of  this  act  authorized  the  issuance 
of  154,000,000  of  national  bank  notes  in  addition  to  the  1 300,000,000 
already  authorized,  said  amount  «to  be  furnished  to  banking  associations 
organized,  or  to  be  organized,  in  those  States  and  Territories  having  less 
than  their  proportion  of  the  bank-note  circulation  under  the  old  appor- 
tionment. Tlie  second  section  directed  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury, 
at  the  close  of  each  month,  to  redeem  and  cancel  an  amount  of  three 
per  cent  temporary  bond  certificates,  issued  under  the  laws  of  1867  ^.nd 
1868,  not  less  than  the  amount  of  bank  notes  so  issued  during  the  mondi. 
Sections  3,  4,  and  5  provided  for  the  organization  of  gold  banks,  subject 
to  the  general  provisions  of  the  National  Banking  Acts,  but  redeeming 
their  circulation  in  gold  instead  of  in  lawful  money.  Sections  6  and  7 
authorized  a  new  distribution  of  national  bank  circulation,  based  upon 
the  census  of  1870,  to  the  extent  of  withdrawing  $25,000,000  of  circula- 
tion from  the  States  and  Territories  having  more  than  their  proportion, 
and  giving  it  to  those  having  less. 

This  act  came  to  hold  an  important  place  in  subsequent  financial 
discussion  and  legislation.  Practically,  it  neither  expanded  nor  con- 
tracted the  currency.  But  it  gave  those  sections  of  the  country  that  were 
most  clamorous  for  "  more  money,"  the  West  and  South  particularly,  an 
opportunity  to  add  materially  to  their  banking  and  currency  facilities. 
Still  the  people  of  these  sections  did  not  come  forward  to  claim  the  prof- 
fered advantages.     New  banks  were  not  promptly  organized,  the  bank- 

*  See  Introductions  to  Speeches  of  June  7  and  June  15, 


CURRENCY  AND   THE  BANKS.  585 

note  circulation  was  not  rapidly  increased,  and  the  national  banks  contin- 
ued preponderatingly  in  the  East.  All  this  confirmed  what  Mr.  Garfield 
had  long  told  the  clamorers  for  more  money,  —  "  The  trouble  is,  not  that 
you  need  more  money,  but  more  capital."  For  years  the  most  telling 
reply  that  could  be  made  to  Western  inflationists  was,  Why  did  you  not 
more  promply  claim  the  banking  facilities  held  out  to  you  in  the  act  of 
July  12,  1870?  There  was  no  answer;  the  law  was  a  reductio  ad absur- 
dutn  of  the  inflation  cry.  Besides,  it  took  away  firom  the  banks  their  most 
inequitable  legal  feature,  —  the  inequality  of  the  distribution  of  capital. 


MR.  SPEAKER,  —  I  ask  the  indulgence  of  the  House 
while  I  review  some  of  the  criticisms  made  on  this  con- 
ference report.  I  desire  to  call  attention  first  to  the  remarks  of 
several  gentlemen  concerning  the  conferees  themselves,  and  par- 
ticularly in  reference  to  myself.  The  criticisms  of  the  gentleman 
from  Illinois^  and  of  the  gentleman  from  Indiana^  seem  to  carry 
the  implication  that  I  am  an  improper  person  to  be  put  on  a 
conference  committee  on  the  subject  of  currency,  because  I  dif- 
fer from  the  House  in  regard  to  an  increase  of  the  currency.  If 
the  criticism  be  just,  then  the  Speaker  should  not  appoint  a 
member  upon  a  conference  committee  who  holds  any  other 
opinion  than  that  held  by  the  House.  I  have  taken  it  for 
granted  that  a  respectable  minority  of  the  House  were  to  be 
represented  upon  a  conference  committee,  and  this  is  the  first 
time  I  have  ever  heard  it  intimated  that  such  an  appointment 
is  improper.  The  gentleman  from  Illinois  has  attempted  to 
ridicule  the  idea  that  a  member  is  capable  of  representing  the 
wishes  of  the  House  where  they  are  not  exactly  his  own.  Is 
the  gentleman  a  lawyer,  and  has  he  never  undertaken  to  repre- 
sent the  views  and  interests  of  a  client  whom  he  did  pot  in  all 
respects  indorse?  When  he  has  undertaken  to  defend  a  crimi- 
nal, has  he  always  taken  upon  himself  all  the  responsibility  for 
the  crime?  Has  he  never  represented  the  views  of  others  with- 
out himself  absorbing  and  impersonating  all  their  beliefs  and 
aspirations?  If  he  has  done  such  a  thing  as  that,  I  think  he 
will  see  sufficient  reason  why  it  may  be  proper  that  a  man 
should  be  on  a  conference  committee  who  does  not  entirely 
concur  with  all  the  sentiments  of  the  body  that  he  represents. 
I  do  not  choose  to  consider  any  of  these  criticisms  as  personal 
to  myself;  I  presume  they  were   not  so  intended;  I  will  not 

»  Mr.  Judd.  «  Mr.  Coburn. 


s'jisfij^ 


586  CURRMNCY  AifD  THE  BAlfKS. 

think  so  meanly  of  any  of  these  gentlemen  as  t»  suppose  tbis^. 
are  influenced  by  mere  personal  jealousy  in  so  small  a  Eaattcr;J. 
iqKak'Va^'Of  the  principle  involved  in  their  ctitici8n& 

And  now  what  assBift  is  «Mde  chi  the  report  itself?  Mr.  - 
Speaker,  thovseems  to  be  one  point  dxMrt «du^  several  gen* , 
demen  have  great  difficulty,  and  tiiat  is  die  aUegation  that 
this  report  authorizes  a  contraction  of  the  currency.  X  odl 
the  attention  of  the  House  to  the  remaricaUe  spectacle  pre-:- 
sented  by  two  able  and  worthy  gentlemen,  representatives 
from  Pennsylvania,^  who  now  sit  here  beude  me,  both  of 
them  actually  engaged  in  national  banking,  and  therefore 
practically  understanding  tlie  system.  One  of  tliem  made  a 
speech  within  the  last  hour  opposing  the  report,  because  it 
authorizes  contraction;  and  the  other,  ten  minutes  ago,  in  a 
speech  of  gfreat  clearness  and  force,  opposed  it  because  it  Is  ai 
measure  of  great  inflation.  These  two  gentlemen  from  the  same  ■ 
State,  gentlemen  of  equal  respectability  and  ability,  have  de> 
monstnded  clearly  to  their  own  minds,  one  that  the  bill  does 
not  permit  inflation,  the  other  that  it  does  not  permit  contrac- 
tion. It  is  perhaps  as  high  a  compliment  as  can  be  paid  the 
bill,  that  it  is  clearly  proved  by  one  of  these  gentlemen  that  it 
is  not  contraction,  and  clearly  proved  by  the  other  that  it  is  not 
inflation.  And  that  is  precisely  the  conclusion  which  the  con- 
ferees of  the  two  Houses  were  compelled  to  reach,  considering 
the  conflict  of  opinion  of  the  two  bodies  that  they  represented. 

Now  my  distinguished  colleague^  on  the  Committee  on  Bank- 
ing and  Currency  says  that  the  $95,ocx),ooo  bill  which  passed 
the  House  was  not  only  not  expansive,  but  if  there  had  been  an 
issue  of  $44,000,000  of  greenbacks  in  addition  to  the  $95,000,000 
bill,  as  he  wanted,  even  then  it  would  have  been  an  inflation  of 
only  $i8iooo,ooo.  According. to  that  gendeman,  the  $95,000,000 
bill  was,  therefore,  a  contraction  to  the  extent  of  $22,000,000. 

Mr.  Coburh.  The  gentleman's  arithmetic  is  not  good.  That  was 
not  the  basis  of  my  calculation. 

1  think  I  have  stated  correctly  the  case  as  it  was  put  by  the 
gentleman  from  Indiana.  But  the  gentleman  from  Illinois' 
admits  that  the  $95,000,000  bill,  as  it  passed  the  House,  was  an 
inflation  to  the  extent  of  $31,000,000.  So  there  is  another  cal- 
culation for  you !  The  other  gentleman  from  Illinois  *•  says  no 
■  Mr.  IngersoU. 
«  Mr.Jndd.     ' 


CURRENCY  AND   THE  BANKS.  587 

man  can  show  that  the  contraction  resulting  from  the  conference 
report  is  less  than  $18,000,000.  To  that  challenge  I  respond. 
If  I  can  have  the  attention  of  the  House  for  about  three  minutes, 
I  will  try  to  state  three  propositions  from  which  I  think  no  mem- 
ber here  will  dissent.  Those  who  say  that  this  bill  is  a  contrac- 
tion of  the  currency,  neglect  to  notice  or  deny  three  things. 

First,  they  neglect  to  notice  the  error  in  the  statement  that 
the  $45,000,000  of  three  per  cents  are  all  a  fixed  part  of  the 
currency,  and  that  to  redeem  them  is  actually  to  contract  a 
fixed  and  certain  portion  of  the  currency.  That  is  the  first 
point.  Now  I  wish  to  call  the  attention  of  the  House  to  a  fact 
which  I  believe  has  been  wholly  overlooked  in  this  debate. 
What  are  the  three  per  cents  ?  They  are  a  loan  of  the  gov- 
ernment, payable  on  demand,  and  are  being  paid  every  day. 
Refuse  to  pass  this  bill,  and  the  three  per  cents  will  nevertheless 
be  redeemed.  They  are  being  redeemed  every  day.  The  offi- 
cial statement  of  the  debt  in  October,  1868,  showed  that  there 
was  then  outstanding  $59,000,000  of  the  three  per  cents.  Pass 
on  to  the  statement  of  the  debt  in  January,  1869,  and  you  find 
the  amount  reduced  to  $52,000,000.  Pass  on  to  July,  1869, 
and  you  find  the  amount  reduced  to  $49,815,000.  Take  the 
statement  of  April  last,  and  you  find  that  they  amounted  to  little 
more  than  $45,000,000.  In  the  last  twenty  months,  the  three  per 
cents  have  been  reduced  by  the  redemption  of  over  $14,000,000 ; 
and  the  reduction  is  still  going  on.  The  men  who  hold  them 
can  demand  their  redemption  any  day.  It  has  been  and  is  the 
policy  of  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  at  least  so  far  as  can 
be  judged  from  his  acts,  to  redeem  and  cancel  them,  and  he 
needs  no  law  to  enable  him  to  do  so.  Now  the  House  can 
reject  this  bill  if  it  pleases,  but  the  three  per  cents  are  going  to 
disappear  any  way,  unless  we  pass,  a  law  to  forbid  it,  and  I  think 
that  is  not  likely  to  happen. 

Mr.  Coburn.  I  desire  to  ask  the  gentleman  what  probability  he 
thinks  there  is  of  a  banker  surrendering  the  three  per  cent  certificates 
held  by  him  ? 

In  reply  to  my  colleague's  question,  I  point  him  to  the  fact 
that  $14,500,000  of  three  per  cent  certificates  have  been  surren- 
dered by  bankers  within  the  last  twenty  months,  and  that  there 
is  constantly  going  on  a  redemption  of  them  without  reissue. 
The  government  has  a  right  to  redeem  them,  and  the  people 
have  a  right  to  present  them  for  redemption  at  any  hour.     That 


588  CURRENCY  AND   THE  BANKS.  1 

is  the  fact.  And  yet  all  these  wise  financial  gentlemen  utterly  I 
ignore  —  perhaps  I  should  say  do  not  know  —  that  fact  whea  J 
they  talk  of  the  three  per  cents  as  if  they  were  greenbacks,  and  J 
a  fixed  portion  of  tlie  currency.  Now,  1  may  be  called  a  theo-  1 
rist,  but  here  are  some  facts  for  gentlemen  to  consider.  \ 

Again,  whenever  there  is  a  panic  in  the  country  the  holders 
of  these  three  per  cent  certificates  bring  them  into  the  Treas- 
ury and  get  currency  for  them.  Why?  Because  they  cannot 
be  used  as  currency  except  as  reserves  by  tlie  banks.  When  ' 
the  panic  occurred  last  September,  $7,000,000  of  three  pCf  I 
cent  certificates  leaped  out  of  the  banks,  and  were  either  ex-  J 
changed  for  currency  or  were  used  as  collaterals  to  borrow] 
money  upon;  and  while  thus  used  they  formed  no  portion,] 
whatever  of  the  reserves  of  the  banks,  and  therefore  performed  , 
no  function  of  currency.  There  has  been  for  the  last  eighteen 
months,  on  an  average,  $3,000,000  of  three  per  cent  certificates 
that  have  not  been  used  as  bank  rcser\'es,  and  that  therefore 
have  in  no  respect  performed  the  functions  of  currency.  And  J 
yet  every  gentleman  who  has  argued  that  this  bill  is  a  measur<!  J 
of  contraction  has  persistently,  with  ears  stopped  and  with  dust  ' 
in  the  air  around  him,  ignored  the  fact  that  $5,000,000  of  these 
three  per  cent  certificates  are  not  to-day,  and  nevpr  have  been 
in  any  sense,  a  portion  of  the  currency  of  the  country. 

My  second  point  is,  that  thus  far  everybody  who  claims  that 
this  bill  is  a  measure  of  contraction  has  said  or  assumed  that, 
if  the  three  per  cents  are  retired,  their  entire  volume  will  be 
supplied  by  greenbacks,  taken  out  of  the  active  circulation  of 
the  country  and  placed  in  the  banks  as  reserves.  Now  this 
I  deny,  with  the  most  absolute  assurance  of  the  correctness  of 
my  denial.  WhyP  The  national  banks  now  hold  $55,000,000 
more  of  reserves  than  they  are  required  by  law  to  hold.  If  you 
take  up  the  three  per  cent  certificates,  now  a  part  of  their 
reserves,  the  result  will  be  that  the  banks  will  hold  less  surplus 
reserves.  They  will  not  reach  out  into  the  country  and  call  in 
$45,000,000  of  active  circulation  to  supply  the  place  of  these 
three  per  cent  certificates.  They  will  simply  reduce  the  vol- 
ume of  their  surplus  reserves;  and  to  that  extent  the  retiring 
of  the  three  per  cent  certificates  will  not  afiect  the  active  vol- 
ume of  the  currency  at  all. 

But  assume,  for  the  sake  of  argument,  that  every  dollar  of  the 
three  per  cents  now  used  by  the  banks  as  reserves  will  be  re- 
placed by  greenbacks  Uken  directly  from  the  active  circulation 


I 

1 
s 

\ 


CURRENCY  AND   THE  BANKS.  589 

of  the  country.  Then  the  gross  contraction  will  amount  to 
$42,000,000,  and  not  one  dollar  more;  because  that  is  the 
amount  of  the  three  per  cents  now  used  by  the  banks  as  a  por- 
tion of  their  reserves.  You  will  then  contract  $42,000,000  and 
issue  $45,000,000. 

We  are.  told  that  for  the  $45,000,000  to  be  issued  there  must 
be  twenty  per  cent,  or  $9,000,000,  of  greenbacks  locked  up  as 
reserves  with  which  to  redeem  them.  Granted ;  but  I  reply  that 
all.  the  gentlemen  ignore  another  fact  which  I  propose  to  notice, 
that  in  starting  new  banks  with  a  circulation  of  $45,000,000,  in 
portions  of  the  country  which  are  now  destitute  of  banking 
facilities,  we  shall  thereby  largely  increase  the  credit  currency 
of  the  country,  to  the  full  extent  of  the  checks,  drafts,  &c.  which 
will  be  issued  and  passed  from  hand  to  hand  by  these  new  banks 
in  the  settlement  of  debts.  This  incontestable  fact  these  gentle- 
men ignore ;  not  one  of  them  even  attempted  to  answer  it.  On 
the  contrary,  the  gentleman  from  Pennsylvania  ^  has  expressed 
with  great  force  his  conviction  that  therein  inflation  is  pro- 
vided for  by  this  bill. 

Now,  there  is  another  fact  to  which  I  wish  to  call  attention, 
the  last  of  these  ignored  facts  that  I  propose  to  notice.  All  the 
gentlemen  who  have  figured  out  a  contraction  in  this  bill  have 
entirely  ignored  the  fact  that  every  dollar  of  circulation  that  will 
be  issued  under  the  provision  for  free  banking  upon  a  gold  basis 
will  be  an  absolute  addition  to  the  present  volume  of  the  cur- 
rency. They  fix  their  eyes  on  what  they  call  the  contractive 
features,  and  utterly  ignore  the  fact  to  which  I  have  just  alluded. 
No  gentleman,  I  think,  will  venture  to  deny  what  all  the  Repre- 
sentatives of  the  State  of  California,  so  far  as  I  know,  assert, 
that  if  this  bill  is  passed  gold  banks  will  immediately  be  organ- 
ized on  the  Pacific  coast.  The  Assistant  Comptroller  of  the 
Currency,  in  a  statement  which  I  received  from  him  this  morn- 
ing, says  that  if  this  bill  be  passed  California  will  probably  not 
take  her  share  of  the  $45,000,000;  that  she  will,  instead,  estab- 
lish banks  on  a  gold  basis.  This  is  what  will  be  done  generally 
on  the  Pacific  coast.  New  Orleans  also  will  start  gold  banks ; 
so,  I  have  no  doubt,  will  Charleston. 

Now  I  have  here  a  table  showing  where  the  $45,000,000 
issued  under  the  first  section  of  this  bill  will  go.  When  gen- 
tlemen say  there  will  be  no  redistribution  under  this  bill,  I 
call  their  attention  to  this  ^ble.    The  gentleman  from  Indiana^ 

*  Mr.  Townsend.  *  Mi,  CoYixatL. 


SQO  CURRENCY  AND   THE  BANKS. 

says  that  he  wants  a  general  redistribution,  one  that  shall  reach 
the  whole  body  of  our  banking  circulation,  —  which  shall  do 
full  justice  between  the  East  and  the  West,  the  North  and 
the  South.  I  will  remind  him  that  last  winter  he  tried  to 
get  through  this  House  a  bill  for  redistribution,  general  and 
sweeping  in  its  character;  but  it  was  impossible  to  pass  it.  I 
remind  him  of  the  further  fact,  and  it  is  an  important  one,  that 
should  he  atteippt  to  redistribute  the  whole  body  of  our  banking 
currency,  taking,  for  example,  $36,cxx5.ooo  from  Massachusetts, 
$12,000,000  from  Rhode  Island,  as  much  more  from  Connecti- 
cut, and  $15,000,000  or  $20,000,000  from  the  city  of  New  York, 
it  is  alleged  there  would  follow  a  severe  shock  to  the  business 
community.  An.iiious  to  avoid  such  a  shock,  the  conferees  on 
the  part  of  the  Senate  and  the  House  thought  that  there  could 
safely  be  issued  $45,000,000  in  lieu  of  the  three  per  cent  certifi- 
cates, which  are  to  be  taken  up  at  any  rate.  In  order  that  the 
withdrawal  of  these  three  per  cent  certificates  may  not  operate 
as  a  contraction  of  the  currency,  wc  have  thought  best  to  pro- 
vide for  putting  into  circulation  in  their  place  $45,000,000  of 
bank  notes,  to  be  distributed  to  the  South  and  West.  But  as 
that  amount  will  not  give  those  sections  of  the  country  their 
proper  proportion,  it  b  proposed  that  $25,000,000  in  addition 
shall  be  taken,  as  it  may  be  required,  not  violently,  but  after 
due  notice,  from  the  States  having  an  excess,  and  shall  be  dis- 
tributed to  them,  I  ask  the  Clerk  to  read  the  table  to  which 
I  have  referred,  showing  what  will  be  the  distribution  of  the 
$45,000,000  provided  for  in  the  first  section  of  the  bill. 

The  Clerk  read  the  following  table,  showing  the  States  which  will  be 
entitled  to  the  ^5,000,000,  under  the  proposed  legislation,  together  with 

the  amount  to  be  issued  to  each  State  :  — 

Sui«  uul  Tcnilorio.  AmoBiiti. 

Geoi^a #3.9<»,63S 

North  Carolina 3,415,696 

Soulh  Carolina 3,514,210 

Alabama 3,401,185 

Oregon ,  134,401 

Texas .    ,  1,693,581 

Arkansas 1,211,994 

Utah ^,6,3 

California 1 ,431, 130 

Florida 4SS'39' 

Dakota lz36S 

New  Meiico ivfix] 

Waatiinf^on  Territory  .    .    .  39,319 

Total %^^yoafloa 


Suit!  and  Toritorit*.  AinounU, 

Virginia $4.095<^3 

West  Virginia 381,494 

Illinois 899,689 

Michigan 655,680 

Wisconsin I.76S039 

lo" 5^7^32 

Kaiuas 145,601 

Missouri 3,500.469 

Kentucky 3,876,321 

Tennessee 3,609,983 

Iiouisiana 4,531,223 

Mississippi 2.483.574 

Nebrailca 5,480 


CURRENCY  AND    THE  BANKS.  591 

Mr.  Speaker,  it  will  be  observed  there  is  $45,000,000  to  be 
divided  among  twenty-six  States,  in  many  of  which  there  is  not 
a  single  national  bank,  and  in  others  only  one  or  two,  while  the 
Southern  States,  which  have  been  restored  to  the  Union  since 
the  war,  have  not  one  dollar  of  banking  circulation  where  they 
had  ten  before  the  war.  If  we  hope  to  thrive  by  perpetuating 
the  great  wrong  done  to  the  South  and  many  portions  of  the 
West  by  refusing  this  distribution,  gentlemen  must  take  the 
responsibility.     I  have  done  what  I  could  to  remedy  the  evil. 

Gentlemen  who  have  spoken  look  upon  this  relief  as  mean 
and  insignificant.  Do  they  suppose  that  more  than  $45,000,000 
can  be  taken  by  these  States  before  next  winter?  If  we  were 
to  vote  $100,000,000  to  be  distributed  in  these  States,  it  is  not 
possible  that  they  can  take  up  more  than  $45,000,000  before  we 
will  be  back  here  again  in  session.  Here  is  a  measure  of  great 
and  immediate  relief  to  the  South  and  West;  yet  there  are 
gentlemen  here  from  the  West  who  say  that  it  is  so  small,  so 
mean,  that  they  do  not  deign  to  accept  it.  It  is  easy  for  the 
Senate,  easy  for  this  House,  to  kill  this  bill ;  but  I  point  you  to 
the  consequences.  For  my  own  part,  I  am  quite  willing  to  let 
these  gentlemen  fight  it  out  among  themselves.  If  they  finally 
reject  this  bill,  they  will  probably  get  nothing.  Because  I  desire 
the  permanence  of  our  banking  institutions,  because  I  desire  the 
injustice  of  the  present  distribution  to  be  removed,  I  desire  the 
passage  of  this  bill.  I  cannot  understand  why  the  gentlemen 
from  the  West  who  are  interested  in  it  should  vote  against  it. 
The  State  of  Ohio  will  not  get  one  dollar  under  its  provis- 
ions, while  the  State  of  Illinois  will  get  nearly  $1,000,000  out 
of  the  $45,000,000.  I  dare  not  on  my  responsibility  here  deny 
to  the  South  and  the  West  the  measurable  relief  which  this  bill 
affords. 

Mr.  Speaker,  there  has  been  an  opposition  to  this  bill  from 
the  start  on  the  part  of  the  bankers  of  New  York  City ;  naturally 
enough,  they  do  not  want  any  reduction  of  their  circulation. 
Most  of  the  $55,000,000  of  bank  reserves  is  held  in  the  banks 
of  that  city.  Take  away  the  three  per  cents,  and  this  New 
York  surplus  will  be  reduced,  and  bankers  will  lose  the  interest 
on  their  reserves.  I  am  not  surprised  that  gentlemen  from  that 
city  should  oppose  this  report,  but  I  am  very  much  surprised 
that  it  should  be  opposed  by  members  representing  the  West. 
It  has  been  opposed  very  persistently  by  the  gentleman  from 


592  CURRENCY  AND   THE  BANKS. 

New  York ;  '  but  I  have  no  doubt  he  is  in  perfect  accord  with 
the  opinions  of  his  constituents,  I  am  surprised  when  gentle- 
men from  the  West  assail  this  proposition,  which  gives  them 
$45,000,000  of  circulation,  as  a  mean  thing  that  ought  not  to 
be  tolerated  by  the  House. 

[Here  ensued  a  colloquy  between  Mr.  Butler  and  Mr.  Garfield ;  the 
latter  proceeded.] 

I  do  not  expect  any  man  who  holds  that  we  may  stamp  paper 
and  call  it  money,  and  it  will  be  money,  —  who  talks  of  gold  and 
silver  money  as  relics  of  barbarism,  —  I  do  not  expect  any  such 
financial  genius  to  vote  for  this  bill  or  any  other  that  Congress 
■  will  adopt.  But  the  gentleman  from  Massachusetts^  has  a  fol- 
lower in  his  new  doctrines.  The  gentleman  from  Illinois^  has 
invented  a  novelty  in  the  literature  of  finance,  if  not  in  currency, 
and  he  also  desires  that  this  bill  shall  not  pass.  He  wants 
"  coined  paper  dollars."  Those  are  his  words.  '"  Coined  paper 
dollars !  "  Put  it  down  in  the  dictionary.  We  are  now  to  have 
a  mint  striking  off  a  new  coin  made  of  paper!  The  gentleman 
says  he  is  in  favor  of  a  cheap  kind  of  money,  and  in  his  speech 
made  some  three  weeks  ago,  and  printed  in  the  Globe  yesterday, 
he  tells  us  what  he  means  by  cheap  money.  He  says  some 
kinds  of  money  are  dear,  and  some  cheap,  and  the  cheap  money 
which  he  loves  is  that  on  which  the  interest  is  low.  That  is  his 
supreme  test.  Any  kind  of  money  on  which  interest  is  low  is 
cheap!  Suppose  you  make  your  money  of  cabbage  leaves. 
At  the  end  of  the  year,  for  every  one  hundred  cabbage  leaves 
you  had  borrowed,  you  would  pay  back  three  cabbage  leaves  as 
interest.  That  would  be  low  enough  interest,  and,  according  to 
the  gentleman,  that  would  be  cheap  money. 

'  Mr.  Cox.  '  Mr.  Botlet.  '  Mr.  tngersolL 


JOSHUA  R.   GIDDINGS. 


ADDRESS  DELIVERED  AT  JEFFERSON,  OHIO,   JULY   25.    1870,  AT 
THE  DEDICATION  OF  THE  GIDDINGS  MONUMENT. 


FELLOW-CITIZENS,  —  We  have  met  to  dedicate  a  monu- 
ment to  the  memory  of  Joshua  R.  Giddings.  The  task 
you  have  assigned  to  me  might  be  more  fittingly  performed  by 
some  one  who  was  more  fully  his  contemporary,  and  a  more 
immediate  sharer  of  his  labors.  But  you  have  asked  me  to 
address  you,  and  I  thank  you  for  being  permitted  to  join  in  the 
ceremonies,  and  to  call  to  your  affectionate  remembrance  the 
man  who  was  so  long  your  leader,  neighbor,  and  friend. 

Beautiful  and  appropriate  as  is  the  monument  you  dedicate, 
its  chief  importance  is  what  it  signifies,  rather  than  what  it  is. 
The  vast  pyramids  of  Egypt  remain  as  material  wonders,  but 
their  significance  is  lost.  They  teach  no  such  impressive  lesson 
as  the  simple  gray  slab  which  travellers  look  at  through  the 
chinks  of  the  brick  wall  that  surrounds  a  graveyard  in  Phila- 
delphia. That  slab  means  all  that  we  love  and  reverence  in 
Benjamin  Franklin.  Monuments  may  be  builded  to  express 
the  affection  or  pride  of  friends,  or  to  display  their  wealth, 
but  they  are  only  valuable  for  the  characters  which  they  per- 
petuate. 

This  monument  is  a  beautiful  tribute  of  filial  affection.  Its 
plain  and  massive  granite  fitly  represents  simplicity,  strength, 
and  repose.  The  perfect  medallion  profile  of  bronze  exhibits 
not  only  the  consummate  skill  of  the  artist,  but  the  affectionate 
reverence  which  inspired  his  work.  But  beyond  all  this  are 
the  more  important  questions,  What  does  it  signify?  What 
qualities  of  mind  and  heart  does  it  aid  in  perpetuating?  What 
will  be  its  meaning  to  those  who  live  outside  the  immediate 
circle  of  Mr.  Giddings's  family  and  friends?  I  shall  try  to  find 
an  answer. 

VOL.  I.  # 


■■'ffP^^BPBB^Bll 


594  yOSHUA  S.  GWBINGS. 

There  are  three  things  that  should  be  considered  in  the  tUe 
of  a  man.  First,  What  was  he,  and  what  were  the  elements  and 
forces  within  himP  Second,  What  were  the  elements  and  ftsve* 
of  life  and  society  around  him?  Third.  What  career  resulted 
from  the  mutual  play  of  these  two  groups  of  forces?  How  did 
he  handle  the  world,  and  how  did  t!ic  world  handle  him?  Did 
he  drift,  unresisting,  on  the  currents  of  life,  or  did  he  lead  iho 
thoughts  of  men  to  higher  and  nobler  purposes? 

The  origin  and  early  life  of  Joshua  Reed  Giddings  may  be 
briefly  told.  He  was  bom  in  Athens,  Hradford  County,  Penn- 
sylvania, October  6th,  1795.  Hia  ancestors  emigrated  from 
England  to  this  country  in  1650.  His  great-grandfather  left 
Connecticut  for  Pennsylvania  in  1725,  and  in  iSofi,  when  Joshua 
was  ten  years  old,  his  father  emigrated  to  the  wilderness  of 
Ashtabula  County,  Ohio,  taking  his  son  with  him,  who  continued 
to  reside'there  during  the  whole  of  his  eventful  life.  Mr.  Gid- 
dings never  had  tiie  advantage  of  a  collegiate,  nor  even  of  an 
academical  education,  and  never  attended  any  other  school 
than  that  kept  in  the'  log  schoolhcuse  of  his  district,  and  this 
only  for  a  portion  of  the  winter  months.  His  father  had  fought 
in  the  battles  of  the  Revolution,  and  he  heard  of  the  stirring 
times  of  '"jd  at  his  father's  fireside. 

In  1812,  young  Giddings  took  part  in  the  war  with  Great 
Britain.  He  enlisted  for  active  service  when  less  than  seven- 
teen years  of  age,  and  was  engaged  in  one  or  more  battles  with 
the  enemy.  He  was  in  the  expedition  to  Sandusky  Bay,  where, 
in  two  battles  in  one  day,  the  force  lost  one  fifth  of  its  number 
in  killed  and  wounded.  On  his  return  from  the  war  he  ac- 
cepted an  invitation  to  teach  a  district  school  in  the  neighbor- 
hood, and  succeeded  beyond  his  expectations.  Hungering  for 
more  knowledge,  he  placed  himself  for  a  time  under  the  tuition 
of  a  neighboring  clergyman.  In  1817  he  commenced  the  study 
of  the  law  with  Hon.  Elisha  Whittlesey,  of  Canfield,  Ohio,  and 
was  admitted  to  the  bar  in  1820.  In  1826  he  was  chosen  a  Rep- 
resentative to  the  State  Legislature;  he  declined  a  re-election, 
and  devoted  himself  to  his  profession  until  1838,  when  he  was 
elected  to  Congress  as  the  successor  of  Mr.  Whittlesey,  where 
he  was  continued  to  the  end  of  the  Thirty-fifUi  Congress,  in 
1858. 

As  the  importance  of  Mr.  Giddings's  public  career  rests  al- 
most exclusively  upon  its  relations  to  the  institution  of  slaveiy. 


JOSHUA  R.   GIDDINGS.  595 

it  IS  important  to  find  out  when  and  how  his  attention  was  first 
directed  to  that  subject.  It  appears  that  in  the  year  1835 
Theodore  Weld  visited  Northern  Ohio,  and  delivered  in  Jeffer- 
son a  series  of  lectures  on  slavery.  At  the  conclusion  of  his 
lectures  he  organized  an  antislavery  society,  consisting  of  four 
men,  one  of  whom  was  Mr.  Giddings.  No  other  plan  of  action 
was  proposed  than  to  secure  an  expression  of  sentiment  on  the 
general  question,  and  an  agreement  to  open  the  general  dis- 
cussion among  the  people.  It  is  important  to  understand  the 
state  of  political  opinion  in  regard  to  slavery  at  that  time,  and 
for  that  purpose  I  ask  your  attention  to  a  brief  survey  of  its 
previous  history. 

The  founders  of  the  republic  believed  they  had  so  adjusted 
its  principles  that  slavery  would  slowly  but  surely  become  ex- 
tinct under  the  joint  operation  of  constitutional  and  popular 
forces.  They  provided  in  the  Constitution  for  the  abolition  of 
the  foreign  slave-trade  after  the  year  1808,  and  in  the  Ordinance 
of  1787  they  prohibited  the  spread  of  slavery  into  any  terri- 
tory of  the  United  States  where  it  did  not  exist.  Thus  pre- 
venting its  numerical  increase  from  abroad  and  its  territorial 
increase  at  home,  and  leaving  in  the  national  Constitution  no 
recognition  of  its  right  to  exist  except  by  the  authority  of  State 
laws,  they  had  strong  ground  for  the  belief  that  the  genial  in- 
fluences of  religion  and  civil  liberty  would  gradually  extermi- 
nate a  system  which  the  cupidity  of  England  had  entailed  upon 
them,  and  which  at  that  time  found  few  apologists  and  still 
fewer  defenders. 

The  reasoning  was  sound,  and  during  the  first  fifteen  years  of 
the  Constitution  there  were  many  indications  of  the  decline  of 
slavery  and  of  the  growth  of  freedom.  But  a  great  reaction  in 
favor  of  slavery  set  in,  in  consequence  of  two  events,  neither 
of  which  the  fathers  could  have  foreseen.  One  was  the  invention 
of  the  cotton-gin  by  Eli  Whitney,  in  1793;  the  other,  the  pur- 
chase of  Louisiana  from  the  French,  in  1803.  The  first  made 
cotton  a  crowned  king  among  the  staple  products  of  the  United 
States.  The  whole  cotton  crop  of  1 790  was  less  than  the  product 
of  a  single  plantation  in  i860.  The  plant  was  almost  valueless 
because  of  the  enormous  labor  required  to  separate  the  seed 
from  the  fibre,  —  one  pound  of  fibre  being  the  average  result  of 
a  day's  work.  So  completely  did  Whitney's  invention  revolu- 
tionize the  industry  of  the  South  that  an  able  writer  declares, 


'^ 


gg6  yOSHUA  R.    GIDDTNGS. 

"To  say  that  this  invention  was  worth  one  thousand  millions  of 
dollars  to  the  Slave  Slates,  is  to  place  a  very  moderate  estimate 
on  its  value."  The  acquisition  of  the  Territory  of  Louisiana 
gave  the  planters  the  best  of  all  their  cotton  lands,  and  opened 
to  them  an  industrial  future,  brilliant  beyond  comparison.  To 
convert  this  new  territory  into  cotton-fields,  and  to  control  the 
cotton  markets  of  the  world,  became  the  passion  of  Southern 
planters.  The  purchase  of  slaves  from  the  worn-out  tobacco 
fields  of  Virginia  and  the  Carolinas,  and  the  organization  of  the 
coastwise  and  interstate  slave  trade,  became  leading  features 
of  the  apostasy  from  freedom  and  the  renewal  of  the  spirit  of 
slavery.  It  was  not  merely  a  perverse  desire  to  oppress  and 
enslave,  but  the  love  of  money,  —  that  cupidity  which  seeks  to 
grasp  great  fortunes  with  few  toils,  —  which  inaugurated  thia 
new  crusade  for  slavery. 

Of  all  the  hostile  forces  which  truth.  Justice,  and  humanity  meet 
in  the  struggle  of  life,  none  are  so  insidious,  none  so  subtle,  none 
so  formidable,  as  the  inordinate  love  of  gain.  This  was  the  in- 
spiring genius  of  slavery.  I  will  not  follow  the  stealthy  steps  by 
which  slavery  made  its  way.  year  after  year,  unchallenged  and 
unobserved.  Appealing  to  the  avarice  of  human  nature,  it  per- 
verted the  intellects  and  drugged  the  consciences  of  men.  It 
guided  the  ambition  of  politicians,  perverted  the  wisdom  of 
statesmen,  seized  all  the  places  of  power  and  influence  in  the 
national  government,  and  finally  entered  the  sanctuaries  of 
religion,  and  converted  the  great  mass  of  American  churches 
into  bulwarks  for  the  defence  of  human  bondage.  It  required 
nearly  half  a  century  to  effect  this  horrible  transformation,  and 
it  was  done  so  silently,  so  insidiously,  that  it  wellnigh  escaped 
the  notice  of  mankind. 

It  is  a  significant  fact,  which  should  not  be  forgotten,  that 
when  the  awakening  began,  it  did  not  begin  in  the  high  places 
of  political  or  ecclesiastical  power.  It  sprang  up  among  the 
common  people  who  lived  remote  from  the  centres  of  power 
and  influence,  —  people  who  ate  their  bread  in  the  sweat  of  their 
faces,  and  who,  adopting  the  religious  and  political  faith  of 
their  fathers,  discovered  and  proclaimed  the  great  apostasy 
of  the  slave  power.  This  truth  is  exemplified  in  the  career  of 
Abraham  Lincoln,  —  that  most  remarkable  character  in  modern 
history.  Sprung  from  such  depths  of  poverty  as  can  hardly  be 
understood  in  this  community,  living  far  removed  from  the  cur- 


yOSHUA  R.   GIDDINGS.  597 

rents  of  political  action,  while  a  boy  working  by  the  month  on 
a  Mississippi  River  flatboat,  he  saw  at  New  Orleans,  in  1829,  a 
slave  auction  and  all  its  brutal  accompaniments,  and  from  that 
hour  his  soul  ceased  not  to  loathe  slavery,  until  in  the  wonderful 
development  of  his  life,  he  was  enabled  to  speak  the  word  that 
broke  four  millions  of  fetters. 

In  the  year  1833  the  American  Antislavery  Society  was  or- 
ganized at  Philadelphia,  with  fpurteen  members,  and  began  to 
make  its  protest  against  slavery.  During  the  ten  or  twelve 
years  that  followed  this  organization,  the  appeal  had  been  so 
fully  made  to  the  public  conscience  that  both  political  parties 
took  the  alarm,  and  determined  to  suppress  agitation  by  every 
means  in  their  power. 

In  order  to  fix  the  place  which  Mr.  Giddings  occupied  in  the 
great  movement  against  slavery,  it  is  necessary  to  make  a  brief 
analysis  of  the  forces  arrayed  against  that  institution  at  the  time 
he  became  prominent.    They  were :  — 

First  William  Lloyd  Garrison  and  his  followers,  who  insisted 
on  immediate  and  unconditional  emancipation  as  the  right  of  all 
slaves,  and  the  duty  of  all  masters.  Believing  that  the  Federal 
Constitution  was  the  bulwark  of  slavery,  they  denounced  it  as 
"  a  covenant  with  death  and  an  agreement  with  hell,"  and  de- 
clined to  vote  or  act  with  any  political  party. 

Second.  Those  who  believed  the  Constitution  to  be  Anti- 
slavery  in  its  spirit,  who  could,  therefore,  support  and  defend 
it,  and  who  ultimately  organized  the  Liberty  party,  and  made 
hostility  to  slavery  their  only  issue. 

Third.  Those  who  were  thoroughly  antislavery  in  sentiment, 
but  thought  it  best  to  remain  in  one  or  the  other  of  the  great 
political  parties  of  the  time,  and  carry  on  the  reform  by  electing 
such  men  as  would  oppose  and  limit  slavery  by  all  legal  and 
constitutional  methods. 

Though  these  three  classes  differed  widely  in  sentiment,  and 
particularly  in  their  practical  methods,  yet  the  term  **  Abolition- 
ist "  was  applied  to  all  of  them,  and  all  suffered  to  a  great  extent 
the  public  odium  which  rested  on  either  class. 

In  the  beginning  of  his  political  career,  Mr.  Giddings  be- 
longed to  the  third  class.  He  was  a  Whig,  and,  except  on 
questions  relating  to  slavery,  acted  with  that  party  during  the 
first  ten  years  of  his  Congressional  life.  He  was  elected  in 
1838,  at  the  last  session  of  the  Twenty-fifth  Congress,  to  fill  a 


598  yOSRUA  R.    GIDDINGS. 

vacancy  occaslooed  by  the  resignation  of  his  old  law  pre- 
ceptor and  intimate  friend,  Elisha  Whittlesey,  who  had  most 
honorably  served  a  continuous  Congressional  term  of  sixteen 
years.  Martin  Van  Bnrec  was  then  President  of  the  United 
States,  and  James  K.  Polk  was  Speaker  of  the  House  of  Repre- 
sentatives. The  alarm  againht  the  antislavcry  movement  had 
"already  been  sounded.  In  his  annual  message,  two  years  before. 
Tresident  Jackson  had  referred  to  antislavery  publications  in 
the  Free  States,  and  declared  that  they  were  ■■  calculated  to 
stir  np  insiirreetioA  uid  produce  al!  the  horrors  of  a  civil  war"; 
diat  they  were  opposed  to  "  humanity  and  religion,  and  in  vio- 
lation of  the  Constitution  and  of  the  compromises  on  which 
the  Union  was  founded." 

Mr.  Giddings  found  but  two  men  in  Congress  who  had  made 
any  public  demonstration  against  slavery.  These  were  the 
venerable  lohii  Quincy  Adams  of  Massachusetts,  and  William 
Siade  of  Vermont  Mr,  Adams  was  thoroughly  antislavcry  in 
sentiment,  and  had  most  ably  defended  the  right  of  petition  in 
Congress,  but  at  that  time  he  had  gone  no  further.  Indeed, 
he  had  on  two  occasions  expressed  the  desire  "that  all  debate 
on  the  subject  of  slavery  in  the  District  of  Columbia  might  be 
avoided."  Mr,  Slade,  the  previous  winter,  had  called  down 
upon  himself  a  storm  of  indignation  by  offering  to  the  House, 
and  approving,  a  memorial  which  prayed  for  the  abolition  of 
slavery  in  the  District  of  Columbia.  While  he  was  speaking, 
the  slaveholding  members  left  the  hall  in  a  body,  and  threatened 
the  dissolution  of  the  Union  if  such  discussions  were  not  pro- 
hibited. 

Mr.  Giddings  took  his  seat  on  December  3,  1838.  On  the 
evening  of  that  day  a  caucus  of  the  dominant  party  was  called  to 
devise  measures  to  prevent  the  agitation  of  the  slavery  question ; 
and  eight  days  later,  Mr.  Atherton  of  New  Hampshire  intro- 
duced, and  the  House  passed,  a  series  of  resolutions  concluding 
with  a  rule  which  was  afterwards  known  as  the  "  Atherton  gag," 
The  resolutions  declared,  in  substance,  — 

"  First.  That  Congress  had  no  jurisdiction  over  slavery  in  the  States. 

"  Second.  That  petitions  for  the  abolition  of  slavery  in  the  District  of 
Columbia,  and  for  the  abolition  of  the  interstate  slave-trade,  were  in- 
tended indirectly  to  alTecl  slavery  in  the  States. 

"  Third.  That  Congress  had  no  right  to  do  indirectly  what  it  could  not 
do  directly,  and  that  the  agitation  of  slavery  in  the  District  of  Columbia 


yOSHUA  R.   GIDDINGS.  599 

and  the  Territories  of  the  United  States  was  against  the  spirit  of  the 
Constitution. 

"  Fourth.  That  Congress  in  the  exercise  of  its  acknowledged  powers, 
had  no  right  to  discriminate  between  the  institutions  of  the  States  with  a 
view  of  abolishing  one  and  promoting  the  other. 

" '  Resolved^  therefore^  That  all  attempts  on  the  part  of  Congress  to 
abolish  slavery  in  the  District  of  Columbia  or  the  Territories,  or  to  pro- 
hibit the  removal  of  slaves  from  State  to  State,  or  to  discriminate  between 
the  institutions  of  one  portion  of  the  confederacy  and  another,  with  tfu 
views  aforesaidy  are  a  violation  of  the  Constitution,  destructive  of  the 
fundamental  principles  on  which  the  Union  of  these  States  rests,  and 
beyond  the  jurisdiction  of  Congress ;  and  that  every  petition,  memorial, 
resolution,  proposition,  or  paper  touching  or  relating  in  any  way,  or  to 
any  extent  whatever,  to  slavery,  as  aforesaid,  or  the  abolition  thereof, 
shall,  on  the  presentation  thereof,  without  any  further  action  thereon,  be 
laid  on  the  table  without  being  debated,  printed,  or  referred.'  "  ^ 

These  illogical  resolutions  were  passed  by  an  overwhelming 
majority,  and  the  concluding  one  became  a  rule  of  the  House 
by  a  vote  of  1 73  to  26.  It  will  be  seen  that,  under  this  rule, 
all  petitions  and  propositions  reflecting  on  slavery  in  any  way 
were  to  be  laid  on  the  table  without  debate,  and  without  be- 
ing printed.  To  his  surprise,  Mr.  Giddings  noticed  that  Mr. 
Adams,  almost  alone,  voted  against  the  first  of  these  proposi- 
tions. Mr.  Giddings  privately  asked  Mr.  Adams  why  he  thus 
voted,  and  that  venerable  statesman  answered  that,  "  /«  case  of 
wary  Congress  and  the  Executive  would  become  possessed  of 
full  power  over  the  institution,  and  might  abolish  it  if  deemed 
necessary  to  save  the  government."  ^  Nothing  in  the  career  of 
Mr.  Adams  shows  more  strongly  his  far-sighted  wisdom  than 
this  declaration,  which  became  the  creed  of  the  nation  during 
our  late  war.  Nothing  more  strikingly  exhibits  his  admirable 
courage  than  this  vote,  which  was  generally  reprehended  even 
by  antislavery  men,  and  the  wisdom  of  which  would  not  be 
likely  to  be  vindicated  till  many  years  after  he  should  have 
passed  from  the  earth.  From  that  time  Mr.  Giddings  was  the 
devoted  friend  of  Mr.  Adams;  he  always  looked  to  him  for 
advice  and  support,  and  was  in  turn  honored  by  the  confidence 
and  friendship  of  that  great  man. 

A  few  weeks  later,  January  30,  1839,  an  incident  occurred 

^  History  of  the  Rebellion,  its  Authors  and  Causes,  by  J.  R.  Giddings,  pp.  122, 
123  (New  York,  1864). 
*  Ibid.,  p.  1  ^3,  note. 


€00  JOSHUA   R.   GIDDINGS.  ■ 

which  made  a  lasting  impression  upon  the  mind  of  Mr.  Gid- 
dings.  A  slave-dealer  from  the  interior  of  Maryland  drove  a 
party  of  sixty  slaves  in  double  file  past  the  Capitol.  The  men 
were  handcuffed  in  pairs,  and  a  long  chain  passing  between  the 
files  fastened  the  gang  together.  The  women,  who  were  not 
chained,  followed  in  the  same  order,  and  the  small  children 
followed  in  a  wagon.  The  slave-dealer  was  on  horseback, 
armed  with  pistols,  bowie-knife,  and  a  plantation  whip.  Mr, 
Slade  offered  a  resolution  reciting  these  facts,  and  directing 
a  committee  to  inquire  what  legislation  was  necessary  to  pre- 
vent a  recurrence  of  such  scenes.  Amid  great  excitement  the 
"  gag  rule  "  was  applied,  the  resolutions  were  laid  on  the  table, 
and  no  debate  was  permitted. 

On  the  13th  of  February,  1839,  Mr.  Giddings  made  his  first 
speech  in  Congress.  A  bill  was  pending  in  committee  of  the 
whole  to  appropriate  $30,000  to  build  a  bridge  in  the  District 
of  Columbia  across  the  Potomac.  Mr.  Giddings  moved  to 
strike  out  the  enacting  clause,  and  declared  his  opposition  to 
any  appropriation  of  public  money  for  the  benefit  of  the  people 
of  that  District,  so  long  as  they  maintained  a  commerce  in  the 
bodies  of  their  fellow-men.  They  had  lately  asked  Congress  to 
exclude  all  petitions  from  the  people  of  the  Free  States  on  the 
subject  of  this  commerce,  and  he  declared  himself  unwilling  to 
repay  such  insults  to  his  constituents  by  taxing  them  to  build 
up  a  slave  market.  The  members  had  recently  enjoyed  an 
opportunity  to  judge  of  the  barbarism  of  this  slave  trade. 
While  coming  to  the  Capitol,  they  had  been  compelled  to  turn 
aside  to  make  room  for  the  passage  of  a  herd  of  human  chat- 
tels, chained,  and  on  their  way  to  the  slave  market.  These 
remarks  created  a  great  sensation,  and  Mr.  Rives  of  Virginia 
called  Mr.  Giddings  to  order.  The  chairman  decided  that  he 
was  in  order,  and  he  attempted  to  proceed,,  when  Mr.  Glas- 
cock of  Georgia  declared  that,  if  such  arguments  were  to  be 
permitted,  the  Union  would  be  dissolved.  Mr.  Giddings  replied 
that  the  inference  to  be  drawn  from  such  threats  was  that  the 
Union  was  based  on  the  slave  trade.     Mr.  Glascock  answered 

with  an  oath,  "You  are  a liar!  "     The  chairman  became 

alarmed  at  the  increasing  excitement,  declared  Mr.  Giddings 
out  of  order,  and  the  House  refused  to  allow  him  to  proceed. 

From  that  day  forward,  to  the  end  of  his  life,  Mr.  Giddings 
was  hated  by  the  slave  power,  and  assailed  in  the  bitterest 


JOSHUA  R.  GIDDINGS.  6oi 

manner.  Though  many  Northern  members  secretly  sympa- 
thized with  his  speech,  yet  few  ventured  to  give  it  public 
indorsement. 

It  is  impossible,  in  the  space  of  this  address,  to  do  justice 
to  the  Congressional  life  of  Mr.  Giddings,  or  to  follow,  ex- 
cept in  the  most  general  way,  the  steps  by  which  he  bravely 
pursued  that  stormy  career  of  twenty  years'  duration,  and 
stamped  his  name  and  memory  forever  on  the  records  of  the 
country.  I  must  content  myself  with  referring  briefly  to  a  few 
points  which  may  aid  in  illustrating  the  great  work  of  his  life. 

He  did  not,  and  could  not,  at  first,  comprehend  its  magnitude. 
Most  of  the  violence  and  bigotry  he  had  seen  exhibited  against 
freedom  came  from  the  South,  and  from  the  Democratic  party. 
The  campaign  of  1840  inspired  him  with  the  hope  that  the 
Whig  party,  with  which  he  was  identified,  would  serve  the  in- 
terests of  freedom.  His  own  influence  and  usefulness  as  a 
member  of  Congress  depended  in  a  great  measure  upon  the 
unity  of  that  party,  and  his  good  standing  as  a  member  of  it. 

There  was  much  antislavery  feeling  throughout  the  country, 
but  it  had  not  been  so  consolidated  and  organized  as  to  de- 
velop any  practical  plan  of  political  action.  In  his  work  on 
the  Causes  of  the  Rebellion,  Mr.  Giddings  has  well  described 
the  state  of  public  feeling,  and  his  own  situation  at  that  time. 
After  stating  that,  in  the  Twenty-sixth  Congress  (1839-41), 
one  more  avowed  advocate  of  liberty  had  been  added  to  the 
House,  thus  making  three  besides  himself,  he  says :  — 

"These  four  members  stood  aloof  from  political  parties  whenever 
subjects  involving  moral  principle  were  agitated,  or  the  rights  of  human- 
ity were  in  issue.  Many  Northern  Whigs  sympathized  with  them,  but 
the  writer  is  not  aware  that  any  other  member  was  willing  to  vote  against 
his  party  on  any  question  touching  slavery.  The  author  was,  perhaps, 
as  strongly  opposed  to  slavery  as  either  of  the  gentlemen  referred  to,  and 
felt  as  deeply  humiliated  by  the  despotism  to  which  members  of  Con- 
gress were  subjected,  but  as  yet  he  had  formed  in  his  own  mind  no 
definite  course  of  action  for  himself,  further  than  a  general  opposition  to 
slavery.  There  were  also  in  the  country  many  abolition  societies.  They 
urged  the  abolition  of  slavery  in  general  terms,  but  proposed  no  definite 
plan  of  operations."  ^ 

"  General  Harrison  was  elected  by  a  triumphant  vote,  and  the  pres- 
tige of  the  Democratic  party  was  somewhat  impaired The  Whig 

1  The  Rebellion,  its  Authors  and  Causes,  p.  134. 


6oa  JOSHUA  R.    GIDDINGS. 

members  of  Congress  had  professed  disgust  ax  the  gag  rules  under  which 
they  were  constrained  to  sit,  and  the  Whig  press  of  the  country  had 
condemaed  the  suppression  of  debate,  as  well  as  prohibiting  the  right 
of  petition,  and  no  one  appeared  to  doubt  that  on  coming  into  power 
that  party  would  restore  diese  natural  and  constitutional  prerogatives  of 
the  people."  ' 

In  the  winter  of  1840-41  the  suggestion  was  made  by  Mr, 
Giddings,  and  approved  by  Mr.  Adams  and  the  two  other  anti- 
slavery  members,  that,  in  order  to  regain  the  freedom  of  debate, 
they  should  test  the  extent  to  which  they  would  be  permitted 
to  discuss,  collaterally,  questions  involving  the  institution  of 
slavery,  Mr.  Giddings  volunteered  to  make  the  effort.  He 
made  a  careful  study  of  the  Florida  war  and  its  causes,  and 
when,  on  the  9th  of  February,  1841,  a  bill  was  under  considera- 
tion, appropriating  $100,000  for  the  removal  of  certain  Seminole 
chiefs  and  warriors  to  the  west  of  the  Mississippi,  he  addressed 
the  House  in  opposition  to  its  passage.  Premising  that  the 
propriety  of  this  appropriation  depended  upon  the  Justice  of 
the  war,  he  entered  into  an  examination  of  its  causes  and  the 
means  by  which  it  had  been  waged.  Taking  his  text  from  the 
title  of  the  bill,  he  showed  that  the  word  Seminole  was  an 
Indian  term,  which  signified  "runaway"  or  "fugitive";  that 
the  Seminole  tribe  consisted  largely  of  the  descendants  of  ne- 
groes who  had  escaped  from  slavery,  and  had  become  free  by 
entering  the  everglades  of  Florida  while  it  was  a  free  province 
of  Spain;  and  that  the  war  had  been  begun  and  prosecuted  for 
the  purpose  of  enslaving  these  exiles  of  Florida.  When  the 
purpose  of  this  speech  became  manifest,  determined  and  re- 
peated efforts  were  made  to  prevent  its  delivery;  but  Mr.  Gid- 
dings had  so  carefully  guarded  his  line  of  thought,  and  so 
closely  connected  his  points  with  the  bill  before  the  House, 
that  he  was  permitted  to  proceed.  He  called  attention  to  the 
fact  that  our  army  were  employing  Spanish  bloodhounds  in 
capturing  these  fugitives,  and  that  the  free  people  of  the  North 
were  taxed  to  pay  for  these  barbarous  instruments  of  slavery 
and  war.  This  speech  was  widely  scattered  throughout  the 
North,  and  made  a  profound  sensation.  Mr.  Giddings  subse- 
quently followed  out  the  history  of  the  Florida  war  more  fully, 
and  has  Icf^  us  the  result  of  his  labors  in  a  volume  entitled 
"  The  Exiles  of  Florida,"  which  is  a  chapter  of  our  history  of 
*  Itnd.,  p.  142. 


I 


yOSHUA  R.   GIDDINGS.  603 

strange  and  thrilling  interest  The  delivery  of  this  speech  was 
the  restoration  of  the  freedom  of  debate,  but  it  cost  Mr.  Gid- 
dings  whatever  influence  he  may  have  hoped  to  exercise  with 
the  incoming  administration  of  General  Harrison. 

I  cannot  omit  from  this  brief  review  a  somewhat  detailed 
account  of  the  causes  which  led  to  the  censure  of  Mr.  Giddings 
in  1842,  and  to  his  conduct  on  that  occasion. 

In  the  autumn  of  184 1,  the  Creole,  an  American  slave-ship, 
sailed  from  Richmond  for  New  Orleans  with  a  cargo  of  one  hun- 
dred and  thirty-six  slaves.  While  at  sea  the  slaves  rose  upon 
the  master  and  crew,  and  asserted  their  liberty.  In  the  struggle, 
one  of  the  slave-dealers  was  killed ;  the  slaves  gained  possession 
of  the  vessel  and  entered  the  British  port  of  Nassau,  where  the 
right  to  freedom  was  recognized  and  protected.  This  event 
created  intense  excitement  throughout  the  United  States.  The 
owners  of  the  negroes  called  upon  the  President  of  the  United 
States  for  compensation  for  their  slaves,  and  Mr.  Tyler  espoused 
their  cause.  Mr.  Webster,  then  Secretary  of  State,  in  a  letter 
addressed  to  Edward  Everett,  United  States  Minister  at  London, 
avowed  the  intention  of  the  government,  in  the  interests  of  the 
owners,  to  demand  indemnification  for  the  slaves.  Mr.  Gid- 
dings, seeing  the  influence  of  our  government  thus  prostituted 
to  the  support  of  the  slave  trade,  brought  the  subject  before 
Congress,  on  the  21st  of  March,  1842,  in  a  series  of  resolutions 
declaring  that,  as  slavery  was  an  abridgment  of  natural  rights, 
it  could  have  no  force  beyond  the  jurisdiction  which  created  it ; 
that  when  a  ship  left  the  waters  of  any  State,  the  persons  on 
board  ceased  to  be  subject  to  the  slave  laws  of  such  State,  and 
thenceforth  came  under  the  jurisdiction  of  the  United  States, 
which  had  no  constitutional  authority  to  hold  slaves ;  that  the 
persons  on  board  the  Creole,  in  resuming  their  natural  rights, 
violated  no  law  of  the  United  States,  incurred  no  legal  penalty, 
and  were  justly  liable  to  no  punishment;  and  that  any  attempt 
to  rc-enslave  them  was  unauthorized  by  the  Constitution  and 
incompatible  with  the  national  honor.  These  resolutions  cre- 
ated an  excitement  so  intense  that  Mr.  Giddings  was  prevailed 
upon  temporarily  to  withdraw  them,  declaring  his  intention, 
however,  to  present  them  on  a  future  occasion.  Mr.  Botts  of  Vir- 
ginia thereupon  introduced  a  resolution  declaring  the  conduct 
of  Mr.  Giddings  in  offering  the  resolutions  to  be  "  altogether 
unwarranted    and   unwarrantable,  and   deserving   the   severest 


tint  yosaxTA  x.  C/Djattfos. 

eondemnfttion  of  the  people  of  this  country,  and  of  this  body  in 
particular."'  The  previous  question  being  ordered,  Mr.  Gid- 
dlngs  was  denied  the  right  of  self-defence,  and  the  resolution 
was  adopted  by  a  vote  of  125  yeas  to  69  nays.  Mr.  Giddings 
instantly  resigned  his  seat  in  Congress,  and  came  home;  but, 
as  Jrou  will  remember,  he  was  re-elected  by  a  larger  majority 
than  ever  before,  and  returned  to  his  seat  with  instructions  to 
maintain  the  doctrines  he  had  asserted.  He  resumed  his  seat 
1H1  tiMy  Sth,  after  an  absence  of  less  than  six  weeks  from  the 
'  ptssagecf  the  vote  of  censure. 
'-.  SbMtfy  after  his  return,^  he  made  an  elaborate  speech  on  a 
propotitkin  to  reduce  the  army,  which  was  opposed,  on  the 
ground  that  a  war  might  grow  out  of  the  Creole  affair.  In 
reply  to  Mr.  Caleb  Cushing's  declaration  that  there  was  "a 
question  of  honor  with  the  British  government  growing  out  of 
the  Creole  question,"  and  that  the  arguments  of  Mr.  Giddings 
were  "  British  arguments  and  an  approximation  to  treason."  Mr. 
Giddings  denied  that  the  government  had  or  could  ever  have 
an/thing  to  do  with  that  transaction;  it  could  not  honorably 
lend  any  encouragement  to  that  "  execrable  commerce  in 
human  flesh  " ;  the  government  was  forbidden  by  every  spirit 
of  morality,  of  national  honor,  to  lend  assistance  to  those 
engaged  in  a  traffic  in  the  bodies  of  men,  women,  and  children. 
He  woyld  rejoice  if  every  slave  shipped  from  our  slave-breeding 
States  could  regain  his  liberty,  either  by  strength  of  his  own 
arms,  or  by  landing  on  some  British  island.  Instead  of  main- 
taining an  army  to  sustain  this  traffic,  he  would  pass  laws  to 
punish  every  man  who  made  merchandise  of  the  image  of  the 
Creator.  He  proceeded  in  a  very  direct  and  conclusive  argu- 
ment to  show  that,  though  slavery  might  be  maintained  within 
the  States  under  their  local  laws,  yet  the  operation  of  those  laws 
was  confined  within  their  limits,  and  could  not  extend  into  other 
States,  nor  upon  the  high  seas.     This  is  a  summary;  — 

"  When  the  ship  Creole  left  the  State  of  Virginia,  therefore,  and 
went  beyond  the  jurisdiction  of  her  laws,  the  slave  code  ceased  to 
operate  upon  those  on  board,  and  they  were  governed  by  the  common 
law  moditied  by  the  laws  of  Congress,  under  which  no  slavery  could 
exist  He  was  aware  that  the  expression  of  these  views  was  not  agree- 
able to  those  around  him,  but  no  member  would  deny  their  correctness. 
They  had  been  so  long  accustomed  to  submit  silently  to  these  encroach- 
>  The  Rebellion,  iu  Authors  and  Cauaes,  p.  183.  *  June  4,  1843. 


yOSHUA  R.   GIDDINGS.  605 

ments  of  the  slave  power,  that  it  was  generally  expected  they  would 
continue  to  submit.  It  was  their  duty  to  speak  frankly  their  sentiments 
and  the  sentiments  of  their  people,  and  those  whom  he  represented  were 
unwilling  to  be  made  parties  to  this  purchase  and  sale  of  men.  They 
had  no  intention  to  shed  their  blood  in  defence  of  this  slave  trade. 
They  would  far  rather  hang  every  pirate  who  had  dealt  in  human  flesh 
upon  our  coast,  than  go  to  war  for  their  protection.  They  saw  not  the 
*  mutiny '  of  these  resisting  victims,  but  the  piracy  of  those  who  sought 
to  restrain  them  in  their  freedom.  The  Secretary  of  State  lytd  referred 
to  these  people  as  *  murderers.*  They  were  on  the  high  seas,  held  in 
subjection  without  law,  and  in  violation  of  justice.  In  the  spirit  and 
dignity  ol  their  manhood,  they  rose  and  asserted  the  rights  with  which 
the  God  of  nature  had  endowed  them.  The  slave-dealer  thrust  him- 
self between  them  and  their  freedom,  and  in  defending  their  lives  and 
liberty  they  slew  him,  for  which  you  and  I  and  all  mankind  honored 
them ;  the  whole  world  would  say  they  did  right.  Would  the  honorable 
Secretary  have  done  less  ?  If  so,  he  would  not  have  deserved  the  name 
of  man.  Yet  he  called  this  high,  heroic  duty  *  murder.'  Our  patriot 
fathers  declared  that  governments  are  instituted  among  men  to  secure 
to  all  the  enjoyment  of  life,  liberty,  and  the  pursuit  of  happiness,  but 
the  honorable  Secretary  appeared  to  think  that  their  principal  design 
was  to  secure  slave-drivers  in  the  pursuit  0/ their  execrable  vocation.  But 
the  Creator  had  not  left  his  attributes  of  truth  and  justice  to  depend 
upon  the  favor  of  men.  They  were  omnipotent,  and  would  prevail. 
When  political  strifes  should  cease,  when  the  Secretary  and  he  should 
sleep  in  their  graves,  when  their  names  should  disappear  from  the 
records  of  time,  the  great,  undying  truth,  that  all  men  are  created  equal, 
that  they  are  endowed  by  their  Creator  with  the  inalienable  right  to  life 
and  liberty,  would  be  acknowledged  and  observed."  ^ 

In  this  speech  Mr.  Giddings  had  nobly  vindicated  the  free- 
dom of  debate  and  the  rights  of  human  nature.  It  should  not 
be  forgotten  that  the  stand  taken  by  this  heroic  man  cost  him 
not  only  all  executive  influence,  but  also  social  position  at 
Washington.  The  social  despotism  of  the  slave  power  has 
never  been  adequately  appreciated.  We  all  remember  that  it 
was  frequently  said,  in  the  early  struggle  with  slavery,  that  the 
atmosphere  of  Washington  had  a  strongly  debasing  influence  on 
the  love  of  freedom  which  Northern  representatives  had  cher- 
ished at  home.  This  result  was  achieved  by  the  systematic 
efforts  of  the  slave  power  so  to  wield  the  social  forces  as  to 
draw  and  hold  within  the  circle  of  their  influence  all  the  young 

^  Speeches  in  Congress,  by  J.  R.  Giddings,  (1853,)  P*  21. 


^ 


Co6  JOSHUA  R.    GWDINGS. 

men  of  promise  and  ambition  who  found  seats  in  the  national 
1^'gisiature.  The  average  man  cannot,  with  perfect  composure. 
speak  and  vote  against  the  wishes  of  the  man  with  whom  he  has 
just  broken  the  bread  of  hospitality. 

For  many  years  there  was  in  Washington  a  most  brilliant 
and  attractive  social  organization,  controlled  absolutely  by  the 
slave  power.  Cabinet  ministers  and  members  of  Congress  from 
the  South  lavished  their  wealth  to  add  to  its  attractiveness. 
And  the  one  indispensable  condition  of  admission  was  support 
and  defence  of  the  peculiar  institution,  or  at  least  silence  in 
regard  to  it.  This  influence  was  all  the  more  potent,  because 
it  was  private  and  silent  in  its  operation.  Those  who  were  not 
admitted  to  this  circle  were  quietly  treated  as  though  unworthy, 
from  lack  of  culture  or  moral  excellence.  From  the  moment 
that  Mr.  Giddings  had  avowed  his  hostility  to  slavery,  he  was 
not  only  shut  out  from  the  society  of  which  I  have  spoken,  but 
was  treated  with  m.arkcd  incivility  and  coldness  by  his  fellow- 
members.  In  his  work  on  the  Causes  of  the  Rebellion,  he 
speaks  of  this  social  ostracism  in  the  most  manly  way,  and  we 
can  see  that  his  genial  nature  suffered  from  this  cause.  Speak- 
ing of  the  session  of  1841  he  says:  " Personal  feeling  began  to 
take  the  place  of  political  sympathy;  the  social  relations  of 
members  were  broken  up,  and  the  common  civilities  of  life  were 
no  longer  observed  by  a  portion  of  the  Southern  members. 
Personal  bitterness  was  manifested  toward  the  writer  more  than 
toward  any  other  member.  There  were  not,  probably,  a  dozen 
slaveholding  members  who  at  that  period  recognized  him  while 
passing  on  the  street,  or  when  meeting  him  in  the  hall  of 
Representatives." ' 

Again,  speaking  of  the  state  of  society  in  1 843,  he  says :  "  At 
Washing;ton  the  author  continued  to  be  stigmatized  as  an  'Abo- 
litionist,' '  an  agitator,'  '  one  who  was  seeking  notoriety.'  Public 
meetings  of  the  Democratic  party  adopted  resolutions  denoun- 
cing him;  and  the  Democratic  papers  assailed  him.  Nor  did 
the  Whig  press  sustain  him.  He  did  not  receive  those  civilities 
usually  extended  to  members  of  Congress,  He  exchanged 
cards  with  but  few;  and  wholly  abstained  from  making  calls  of 
ceremony."  * 

It  is  not  a  light  thing  for  a  man  like  Mr.  Giddings  to  pass 
a  large  part  of  twenty  years  in  the  manner  here  described. 
I  The  Rebellion,  its  Aolhon  *nd  Ckiues,  p.  158.  *  Ibid.,  p.  316. 


JOSHUA  R.   GIDDINGS.  €07 

So  far  as  I  have  been  able  to  discover,  Mr.  Giddings  was  the 
first  to  state  a  national  and  practical  ground  on  which  members 
of  Congress,  and  the  people  sustaining  them,  could  effectively 
resist  the  institution  of  slavery.  This  statement  was  made  in  a 
speech  delivered  in  the  House  of  Representatives,  February  13, 
1844.  After  showing  that  slavery  was  the  creature  of  State  law, 
and  disclaiming  any  right  or  purpose  to  interfere  with  it  in  the 
States  where  it  existed,  he  said :  "  Whatever  issue  I  take  with 
Southern  gentlemen  is  based  entirely  upon  this  plain  and  ob- 
vious doctrine  of  the  Federal  Constitution,  —  that  this  govern- 
ment possesses  no  power  whatever  to  involve  the  people  of  the 
Free  States  in  the  support  of  slavery."  .  This  doctrine  forms  a 
rally ing-point  for  all  subsequent  Congressional  resistance  to  the 
encroachments  of  slavery.  All  attempts  to  appropriate  money 
to  pay  for  fugitive  slaves,  for  slaves  lost  in  war,  or  by  shipwreck 
on  foreign  islands,  —  all  attempts  to  annex  foreign  territory  for 
the  purpose  of  extending  the  area  of  slavery,  or  to  admit  new 
Slave  States  into  the  Union,  —  in  short,  all  federal  legislation  in 
aid  of  slavery  was  thereafter  resisted  on  that  ground,  for  the 
clear  statement  of  which  the  friends  of  liberty  were  indebted  to 
Mr.  Giddings. 

I  cannot  follow  the  history  of  his  long  and  fierce  struggle 
with  the  defenders  of  slavery.  The  older  men  of  this  audience 
remember  how  he  withstood  taunts  and  angry  scorn,  —  how 
he  stood  at  his  post  when  pistols  were  levelled  at  him,  when 
knives  were  brandished,  and  bludgeons  were  lifted  to  threaten 
his  life  and  silence  his  voice. 

The  great  power  of  Napoleon  was  seen  in  the  rapidity  and 
certainty  with  which  he  discovered  the  vulnerable  point  in  the 
enemy's  line,  and  the  terrible  swiftness  with  which  he  dealt  his 
blows.  With  something  of  the  same  quality,  Mr.  Giddings  was 
able  to  determine  the  weak  points  of  his  adversaries, — to  deter- 
mine the  opportune  moment  to  strike. 

He  continued  to  act  with  the  Whig  party  till  1848,  when  he 
took  a  leading  part  in  organizing  the  Free  Soil  movement  at 
the  Buffalo  Convention.  He  then  boldly  denounced  both  the 
Whig  and  Democratic  parties  as  hostile  to  liberty,  and,  taking 
the  field  against  their  combined  opposition,  carried  his  district 
for  the  Free  Soil  party.  In  1856  he  helped  to  organize  the 
Republican  party,  and  in  his  library  in  Jefferson  wrote  the 
resolution  which  formed  the  leading  doctrine  promulgated  by 


6o8  JOSHUA  R.    GIDDINGS. 

that  party  at  the  Philadelphia  Convention.  In  i8s9  he  closed 
his  twenty  years  of  service  in  Congress.  Shortly  after  the 
accession  of  Mr.  Lincoln  to  the  Presidency,  he  was  appointed 
United  States  Consul-General  of  Canada,  and  died  at  his  post 
of  duty  in  May,  1864. 

I  cannot  forbear  quoting  a  passage  from  a  letter  which  I  have 
lately  received  from  one  of  his  old  neighbors,  a  citizen  of  this 
place,  who  was  his  devoted  friend  for  many  years,  and  who,  in 
clear  and  felicitous  language,  thus  expresses  his  appreciation  of 
Mr,  Giddings's  character :  — 

"  His  perception  of  the  interior  character  of  events  —  seeing  how  they 
tended  and  how  they  must  result  —  was  superior  to  the  great  mass  of 
politicians ;  and  he  had  tiie  sagacity  lo  see  that  it  was  wisdom  to  trust 
this  power  of  seeing  his  way  before  hira.  This,  with  an  earnest  regard 
for  the  right,  made  him  what  he  was ;  and  he  was  almost  wholly  given 
uji  to  his  chosen  labors  in  the  political  world,  even  at  home.  In  private 
life  his  pursuits  were  the  same  as  in  public,  and  he  thought  and  talked 
of  the  same  things  at  home  and  abroiid.  If  this  ceased  to  be  his  snbject, 
it  gave  place  to  personal  anecdotes  of  the  men  of  his  day  and  his  field, 
or  10  the  baiHnage  of  a  strong  mind  at  playful  rest.  He  was  compara- 
tively a  strangtT  to  general  literature,  and  his  tlieolugical  thinking  led 
him  to  liberal  views  of  the  subject  of  religion.  On  the  great  subject 
to  which  his  public  life  was  devoted,  he  knew  the  exact  position  that 
belonged  to  him,  and  he  fought  the  battle  with  the  most  effective  weap- 
ons, in  the  choice  of  which  he  seemed  never  to  have  been  mbtaken, 
nor  to  have  ill  timed  a  blow  at  the  enemy  he  had  volunteered  to  fight. 
Politically  he  was  sound  and  strong ;  and  he  appeared  to  know  —  what 
so  many  never  learn  —  that  it  was  not  necessary  for  him  to  sacrifice  any 
principle  for  success,  and  he  had  the  patience  to  wait  for  success  till 
he  found  it  in  victory.  During  a  period  of  almost  forty  yean  his  life 
formed  no  small  part  of  the  history  of  our  country,  and  his  name  is 
as  familiar  to  the  world  as  it  is  here  at  home  among  his  neighbors.  Hia 
manners  were  very  simple,  and  his  relations  to  his  neighbors  extremely 
democratic.  He  treated  all  men  alike,  and  in  the  town  and  county 
knew  everybody,  and  met  them  on  terms  of  easy  familiarity.  This  town 
is  indebted  to  him,  in  a  great  degree,  for  the  democratic  maimers  that 
have  always  characterized  it.  During  the  recesses  of  Congress,  when 
at  home,  he  was  usually  among  the  people,  and  in  summer  his  favorite 
amusement  was  a  game  of  base-ball  on  the  old-fashioned  plan,  of  which 
the  season  opened  on  his  return  home,  and  not  before." 

These  glimpses  of  his  home  life  will,  I  am  sure,  aid  in  calliog 
htm  up  to  your  minds  as  you  knew  him. 


yOSHUA  R.   GIDDINGS.  609 

And  now,  in  conclusion,  I  call  your  attention  to  the  prominent 
place  he  must  always  occupy  in  the  history  of  the  great  events 
which  have  marked  the  passage  of  the  Republic  from  slavery  to 
freedom.  The  story  of  his  life  is  a  large  part  of  the  history  of 
his  country.  Many  of  his  speeches  now  read  like  prophecy. 
At  the  time  of  their  delivery,  they  were  regarded  by  the  ma- 
jority of  his  contemporaries  as  the  dreams  of  a  fanatic.  He  led 
the  sentiments  of  his  constituents  by  becoming  their  instructor ; 
and  if  at  any  time  they  did  not  agree  with  his  doctrines,  they 
still  respected  the  sincerity  of  his  convictions,  and  admired  the 
courage  with  which  he  proclaimed  them.  His  life  is  a  per- 
petual rebuke  to  those  politicians  who  drive  before  the  wind  of 
popular  opinion,  and  a  hopeful  and  inspiring  example  to  those 
who  follow  their  convictions  of  truth  in  the  hope  of  final  success 
and  the  approval  of  mankind.  Thousands  of  his  comrades  in 
the  great  struggle  will  delight  to  visit  this  monument,  and  draw 
inspiration  from  the  lessons  of  his  life. 

On  hearing  that  these  ceremonies  were  to  take  place,  the 
venerable  Gerritt  Smith  wrote  to  a  member  of  the  Giddings 
family  a  letter,  from  which  I  am  permitted  to  quote  the  follow- 
ing :  —  "I  never  had  a  truer  friend  than  was  your  honored  and 
beloved  father.  He  was  emphatically  a  great  and  good  man, 
and  his  country  should  never  forget  the  services  he  rendered 
her.  I  wish  I  could  see  his  monument.  Perhaps  I  may  yet 
feel  able  to  travel  to  it,  and  enjoy  the  privilege  of  being  inspired 
by  its  presence." 

Charles  Sumner  also  writes:  — "I  never  think  of  your  father 
without  a  sense  of  gratitude  for  his  whole  life.  Such  an  ex- 
ample is  much  for  Ohio,  —  much  for  the  whole  country.  He 
was  one  of  our  great  men.  I  regret  that  I  cannot  be  present  at 
the  proposed  celebration." 

Fellow-citizens  of  Ashtabula  County,  the  grave  and  the  mon- 
ument of  Giddings  are  left  with  you.  His  life  and  fame  belong 
to  his  country  and  to  all  mankind. 


VOL.  L  39 


POLITICAL    ISSUES    OF    1870. 


DELIVERED  AT  MANSFIELD,  OHIO, 
Auoorr  «7,  1S70. 


FELLOW-CmZENS,— TTie  time  lias  arrived  when 
people  of  Ohio  are  about  to  resume  those  powers  whidi 'I 
two  years  ago  they  intniated  to  their  representatives  in  i 
councils  of  the  State  and  nation.  Several  important  officers 
the  executive  and  judicial  depaitnents  of  our  State  government, 
and  all  the  representatives  to  which  Ohio  is  entitled  in  one 
branch  of  the  national  legislature  for  the  next  two  years,  are 
soon  to  be  chosen  by  the  people,  In  accordance  with  a  time- 
honored  custom,  the  event  is  made  an  occasion  when  the  peo- 
ple re-examine  the  foundations  on  which  their  governments  are 
built,  and  inspect  the  work  of  their  servants  to  see  if  it  has  been 
done  honestly  and  wisely,  in  accordance  with  the  plans  of  the 
master-builders.  This  frequent  resumption  of  power  by  the 
people  themselves  is  the  American  method  of  managing  revo- 
lutions, or  rather  of  avoiding  them.  Its  value,  as  a  principle  of 
government,  finds  a  striking  illustration  in  the  condition  of  the 
United  States  as  compared  with  that  of  Europe  at  the  present 
moment.  Two  nations  of  highest  civilization,  each  having  a 
population  of  nearly  forty  millions  of  souls,  within  the  last  six 
weeks,  have  put  two  millions  of  their  best  citizens  into  battle 
array,  and  are  bringing  measureless  disaster  upon  each  other 
and  upon  all  Europe,  because  a  third  nation  proposed  to  invite 
a  young  man  to  fill  the  office  made  vacant  by  the  expulsion  of 
a  weak  woman.  Even  if  the  cause  of  the  Franco-German  war 
be  stated  more  broadly,  it  must  still  be  charged  to  the  personal 
md  ambition  of  not  more  than  three  or  four  persons, 
— -—  ^"*se  j^j.  ba^vbles  called  crowns.  For  that  vague  and  shadowy 
pride  P  '°  1  called  "  the  balance  of  power,"  all  thi  nations  of 
who  We. 
Phanfoir 


POLITICAL  ISSUES   OF  1870.  61 1 

Europe  maintain  vast  armaments  on  sea  and  land,  and  stand 
ready  at  any  moment  to  deluge  their  continent  in  blood.  In 
nearly  all  their  wars,  the  question  is  one  of  family,  dynasty,  or 
other  matter  of  monarchical  concern.  It  is  the  king's  quarrel 
and  the  people's  fight  He  plots  and  schemes,  while  they  pay 
and  bleed.  Happily  for  us,  the  founders  of  our  republic  estab- 
lished a  "  government  of  the  people,  by  the  people,  and  for  the 
people,"  and  our  first  President  left  us  as  a  farewell  legacy  the 
sentiment  and  warning  that  the  nation  should  forever  keep 
clear  of  entangling  alliances  and  interferences  with  the  quarrels 
of  other  states. 

Although,  when  foreign  or  domestic  war  assails  our  republic, 
the  whole  nation  can  form  in  order  of  battle,  and  make  all  its 
soil  one  vast  camp,  yet  in  time  of  peace,  relying  on  the  obe- 
dience of  all  to  the  lawfully  expressed  will  of  the  majority,  we 
reduce  our  army  and  navy  to  the  smallest  size  consistent  with  a 
proper  police  of  the  sea  and  the  shore,  and,  keeping  abreast 
with  the  developments  of  military  and  naval  science,  trust  to 
our  continental  position  and  immense  resources  to  render  us  safe 
against  foreign  assaults,  and  enable  us  to  direct  our  vast  ener- 
gies to  the  arts  of  peace  and  civilization.  The  political  party 
whose  doctrines  and  aspirations  accomplish  most  in  this  di- 
rection will  enjoy  the  confidence  and  support  of  our  people. 
By  this  test  all  political  organizations  must  be  judged.  I  confi- 
dently challenge  its  most  searching  application  in  a  comparison 
of  the  careers,  doctrines,  and  characters  of  the  Republican  and 
Democratic  parties  of  to-day. 

Democratic  leaders  will  hardly  dare  to  appeal  to  the  history 
of  their  party  during  the  last  eventful  decade  as  a  pledge  of 
their  fitness  to  be  trusted  with  power.  The  shameful  story  is  a 
painful  one  to  rehearse.  The  people  know  it  by  heart,  and  I 
shall  not  weary  you  with  the  recital,  but  will  only  remind  you 
of  a  few  significant  facts  which  no  intelligent  Democrat  will 
deny. 

I.  That  after  a  long  period  of  Democratic  subordination  to 
the  interests  of  the  slave  power,  and  the  prostitution  of  every 
department  of  the  national  government  to  the  support  and  ex- 
tension of  slavery,  the  Republican  party,  in  i860,  made  a  suc- 
cessful appeal  to  the  people  through  the  ballot-box  to  forbid 
the  further  spread  of  that  baneful  institution;  and  thereupon 
the  most  formidable  conspiracy  known  in  history  was  hatched 


6l3  POLITICAL  JSSVMS  Of  1870. 

in  the  bosom  of  the  Democratic  pu^  for  the  destnidfoji  of  Qk 
nation  and  the  perpetuatioa  of  human  bondage.  In  ^>a  <CCK|I- 
Bpinuynot  one  Republican  took  part;  Its  leai^rs  fud  ^a{90ft- 
ers  were  Democrats  all. 

3.  That,  from  the  beginning  to  the  end  of  our  great  war  for 
the  preservation  of  the  Union,  the  Democratic  partj^  through  its 
conventions  and  other  organs  of  opinion  and  power,  threw  the 
whole  weight  of  its  political  and  moral  influence  against  the 
Union  and  in  favor  of  the  Rebellion.  Whether  the  nation 
called  for  men  to  fight,  for  money  to  pay,  or  for  the  destruction 
of  slaveiy  as  a  means  of  weakening  the  enemy,  these  and  all 
similar  measures  met  the  steady  and  persistent  opposition  of 
the  Democratic  party.  Of  course  I  do  not  speak  of  all  Demo- 
crats as  individuals,  but  of  the  party  organization  as  such. 

3.  That  since  the  war  all  the  leading  meaiiures  deemed  ne- 
cessary to  secure  the  fruits  of  the  contest,  and  to  prevent  the 
recumnce  of  secession  and  rebellion,  have  met  with  almost 
unanimous  oppoution  from  the  Democratic  party.  This  state- 
ment finds  ample  proof  in  the  fact  that  on  the  passage  of  every 
statute  and  constitutional  amendment  for  the  abolition  of  slav- 
ery, for  granting  civil  and  political  rights  to  those  made  free 
by  the  war,  for  making  the  payment  of  the  Rebel  debt  and 
the  repudiation  of  the  national  debt  impossible,  for  restoring 
the  rebellious  States  in  the  interest  of  liberty  and  loyalty,  for 
securing  equal  and  exact  justice  to  all  citizens,  —  I  say.  on  the 
passage  of  all  acts  and  amendments  for  'these  purposes  the 
Democratic  party,  through  the  votes  of  its  approved  repre- 
sentatives, has  been  the  party  of  obstruction  and  hindrance, 
whose  chief  if  not  sole  principle  of  action  has  been  to  oppose 
whatever  the  party  in  power  was  doing. 

Over  against  this  shameful  record  stands  the  honorable  rec- 
ord of  the  Republican  party.  Inspired  with  the  love  of  liberty 
and  union,  that  party  saved  and  preserved  both.  Its  pathway 
across  the  decade  just  closed  is  crowded  mth  imperishable 
monuments  of  heroic  sacrifice,  of  courageous  wisdom,  of  deep 
and  abiding  faith  in  the  final  triumph  of  truth  and  justice, — 
monuments  which  a  grateful  posterity  will  forever  cherish, 
but  in  the  glory  of  which  the  Democratic  party  has  no  share. 
During  these  terrible  years  the  Republican  party  was  again  and 
again  charged  with  responsibilities  immeasurably  great,  and 
with  trusts  precious  beyond  price.    The  very  life  of  the  nation 


POLITICAL  ISSUES  OF  1870.  613 

was  committed  to  its  care.  In  more  than  one  crisis  the  defeat 
of  the  Republican  party  would  have  been  the  dismemberment 
of  the  Union,  the  triumph  of  the  Rebellion.  In  every  such 
crisis  the  defeat  of  the  Democratic  party  was  the  salvation  of 
the  republic.  It  is  a  fearful  thing,  fellow-citizens,  to  be  a  mem- 
ber of  a  political  party  whose  success  is  a  victory  for  the  armed 
enemies  of  our  country.  Will  any  one  who  hears  me  deny  that 
such  would  have  been  the  result  of  Vallandigham's  election 
as  Governor  of  Ohio,  in  1863?  I  challenge  the  leaders  of  the 
Democratic  party  to  show  any  substantial  measures  which  they 
proposed  during  all  those  years  that  would  have  resulted  in  the 
honor  and  safety  of  the  nation,  or  in  securing  liberty  and  justice 
to  its  citizens. 

I  do  not  underestimate  the  value  of  an  opposition  party  in 
popular  government.  An  intelligent  opposition  is  always  valu- 
able as  a  check  to  the  abuse  of  power.  To  construct,  build, 
preserve,  and  defend,  are  the  duties  of  those  who  manage  public 
affairs.  To  oppose  unwise  measures  and  propose  better  ones  is 
the  worthy  work  of  an  opposition  party.  But  in  what  instance 
have  the  Democracy  done  this?  Occasionally  they  have  been 
intrusted  with  the  conduct  of  affairs  in  some  of  the  States.  But 
in  every  such  case  their  course  has  been  reactionary  and  violent. 
Will  they  rest  their  claim  to  wise  statesmanship  on  their  legis- 
lation for  Ohio  in  1868-69?  That  test  would  be  perilous  to 
their  reputation  to  the  last  degree.  I  do  not  claim  that  the 
past  history  of  parties  shall  be  the  chief  reason  for  intrusting 
them  with  power,  or  excluding  them  from  it ;  but  such  records 
as  the  two  parties  of  the  country  have  made  since  i860  afford 
strong  presumptive  evidence  that  it  is  safe  and  wise  to  trust 
the  Republican  party,  and  dangerous  and  unwise  to  trust  the 
Democratic  party. 

But  I  turn  from  this  political  retrospect.  The  life  of  the  re- 
public goes  on  developing  new  questions  and  new  necessities. 
What  are  its  present  wants,  and  what  policy  will  best  meet 
them?  What  are  the  two  great  parties  doing  and  proposing 
for  the  immediate  future?  To  these  questions  I  cheerfully  at- 
tempt answers.  Others  more  immediately  connected  with  the 
government  of  Ohio  will  discuss  the  issues  of  State  politics. 
On  this  occasion  I  shall  speak  mainly  of  Congfress  and  the 
Republican  administration  at  Washington. 

In  the  first  place,  we  announce  the  completion  of  the  great 


614  POLITICAL   ISSUES   OF  1870.  1 

work  of  reconstruction.  The  suffrage  has  been  conferred  on  1 
those  who  were  lately  slaves;  and  this  new  guaranty  of  free-  I 
dom  has  been  set  like  a  fixed  star  in  the  firmament  of  the  Con-  j 
stitution.  Manhood,  not  the  accident  of  race  or  color,  is  now  I 
the  basis  of  our  government.  As  a  result,  the  negro  question  ] 
is  substantially  removed  from  the  arena  of  American  politics.  1 
The  colored  men  of  this  country,  having  now  equal  rights  be- 
fore the  law,  must  vindicate  their  own  manhood,  and  prove  by  1 
their  own  efforts  the  wisdom  of  the  policy  which  has  placed 
their  destiny  in  their  own  hands. 

During  the  last  session,  three  more  of  the  lately  rebellious  ' 
Stales  were  restored  to  their  places  in  the  Union,  and  to  repre- 
sentation in  both  branches  of  Congress.  Georgia,  the  last  of 
the  insurgent  eleven,  has  compUcd  with  the  terms  of  restoration, 
and  has  been  declared  entitled  to  representation.  This  virtually 
closes  the  difScult  work  of  restoration.  The  Southern  people 
are  fa.st  regaining  their  prosperity.  One  more  cotton  crop  like 
that  of  last  year  will  make  the  South  more  wealthy  and  prosper- 
ous than  ever  before,  and,  freed  from  the  dead  weight  of  slaver^', 
a  bright  career  is  opening  before  her  people.  The  time  is  not 
far  distant  when  her  thoughtful  citizens  will  sec  that  the  success 
of  the  Union  cause  conferred  upon  her  incalculable  blessings, 
and  saved  her  from  the  saddest  of  destinies.  Laws  have  also 
been  passed  to  enforce  the  new  Amendments  to  the  Constitu- 
tion, and  nothing  can  now  disturb  these  great  guaranties  unless 
it  be  the  reactionary  power  of  the  Democracy.  Their  purpose 
in  this  direction  was  exhibited  in  a  vote  given  on  the  nth  of 
July  last,  in  the  House  of  Representatives,  on  a  resolution  de- 
claring that  the  Fourteenth  and  Fifteenth  Amendments,  hav- 
ing been  duly  ratified  by  the  legislatures  of  three  fourths  of 
the  States,  had  thus  become  part  of  the  Constitution,  binding 
and  obligatory  upon  all  officers  of  the  national  and  State  gov- 
ernments, and  upon  all  citizens  of  the  United  States.  Of  the 
thirty-four  Democrats  who  voted  on  this  resolution,  only  three 
voted  for  it;  thirty -one  voted  against  it.  Will  the  people  of 
Ohio-  sustain  the  Democratic  party  in  this  revolutionary  con- 
duct? If  the  Democrats  can  select  a  part  of  the  Constitution 
which  they  declare  is  not  binding  upon  the  people,  another 
party  may  nullify  the  rest,  and  there  is  an  end  of  law,  and  the 
beginning  of  anarchy.  There  are  no  bounds  which  such  a 
spirit  of  reaction  may  not  overleap.     If  I  understand  the  spirit 


POLITICAL  ISSUES  OF  1870.  615 

and  sentiment  of  the  American  people,  they  will  never  permit 
the  great  work  accomplished  during  the  past  ten  years  to  be 
destroyed  by  the  men  whose  bitter  opposition  is  encountered 
at  every  step. 

But  now  that  the  war  and  slavery  are  ended,  and  reconstruc- 
tion is  virtually  completed,  the  subject  of  deepest  interest  to  the 
people  is  the  management  of  their  financial  affairs.  They  have 
shown  themselves  ready  and  willing  to  bear  all  burdens  which 
may  be  necessary  to  support  the  government,  to  maintain  its 
honor  at  home  and  abroad,  to  meet  all  its  just  obligations,  and 
to  preserve  inviolable  the  public  faith;  but  they  will  hold  to 
the  strictest  account  those  who  are  intrusted  with  the  manage- 
ment of  the  revenues.  I  take  great  pleasure  in  rendering  an 
account  of  the  manner  in  which  the  Republican  party  and  the 
administration  of  President  Grant  have  discharged  that  duty. 

And,  first,  I  call  attention  to  the  revenues  of  the  nation, — 
the  money  paid  by  the  people  into  the  public  treasury.  In  the 
year  ending  June  30,  1866,  the  receipts  from  taxes,  and  all  other 
sources  except  loans,  had  reached  the  highest  figure  ever  known, 
the  sum  of  $558,032,620.  Between  that  period  and  the  20th  of 
July,  1868,  five  different  laws  were  passed  repealing  taxes  which 
had  produced  in  the  aggregate  a  revenue  of  $173,000,000.  If 
these  repealed  laws  were  in  force  to-day,  the  people  would 
pay  $200,000,000  more  of  tax  per  annum  than  they  now  pay. 
The  growth  of  our  wealth  would  have  shown  an  increase  of 
$27,000,000  over  and  above  that  of  1866. 

The  total  receipts  for  1867-68,  exclusive  of  loans,  were  1405,638,038.32 
The  total  receipts  for  1868-69,  exclusive  of  loans,  were  370,943,747.21 
The  total  receipts  for  1869-70,  exclusive  of  loans,  were    411,255,477.63 

The  last  fiscal  year  shows  an  increase  of  more  than  $40,000,000 
over  the  preceding  year,  and  the  increase  for  the  current  year 
is  thus  far  still  greater. 

It  is  instructive  to  inquire  how  this  large  increase  of  revenue 
has  been  produced.  It  is  mainly  due  to  the  more  honest  and 
faithful  collection  of  the  revenues  since  General  Grant  became 
President.  I  hold  in  my  hand  an  official  statement,  signed  by 
Columbus  Delano,  the  Commissioner  of  Internal  Revenue, 
which  exhibits  fifteen  of  the  main  sources  from  which  our  in- 
ternal revenues  are  drawn ;  it  exhibits  also  the  amounts  received 
from  each  source  during  the  last  fourteen  months  of  Johnson's 


■■■■*-'^^®sb;« 


6i6 


POJJTICAL  ISSVSS  &Jf  t^ 


admiiilstratioa,  and  for  the  first  foorteeit  montiu  of  Gf«irt^  «1- 
miotstiatloiL  This  table  shows  a  total  wcrcase  from  tibcs* 
source*  of  more  than  $50^000,000,  beiiqj;-B  gain  (^-33.5  per 
cent  On  one  only  of  these  sources  has  there  been  «  decrease* 
and  that  is  penalties  for  vicdatiott  of  the  reveanelawt.  Time . 
has  been  a  falling  off  of  forQr  per  cent  in  tile  receipts  from  tUft, - 
source,  thus  showing  that  the  revenue  has  been  more  fully 
pidd,  witii  less  fraud  and  evasion  than  before.  Some  of  these 
items  are  very  suggestive.  On  distilled  spirits  the  tax  collected 
during  tiie  first 'fourteed  months  of  General  Grant's  term  is 
greater  by  more  than  $25,500,000  than  was  collected  during  . 
the  last  foUTteeO  monlhs  of  Hr;  Johnson's  term.  This  great 
disparity  is  made  all  th^  more'strildi^  by  the  fact  that  the  tax 
was  two  dollars  per  gallon  in  the  one  case,  and  only  sixty-five 
ceiits  per  gallon  In  die  other.     On  tobacco  the  gain  was  nearly 

$i3,50o.ooa  ^T 

In  submitting  the  following  tablt,  it  is  proptir  to  seawrfc  -tiul  - 
H  does  not  exhibit  all  the  recdpts  of  internal  reMaseW  bsUk'i 
periods,  those  on  which  Ae  tax  has  been  repeided  bdngo 


CampiraHot  Statiment,  thewh^  Xatifilt  from   tamt  General  Stttctt  wf  7. 

Jratn  January  I,  1868,  te  Fibmary  38,  l86g,  imluiwi,  and  frim  tfarck  I,  1869, 
te  Afrii  30,  1870,  intitahn;  aim,  incraue  er  dtcrtast,  and  ittcrtait  or  detrax 


•    MatiS.ll 


«Bth.r 


Anidu  in  Sch«dii;g  A 


li,48ll.7<i.8. 

7flJSi97S-19 
31.1«3.J7I-Bi 

M9.7«i^7 


7J,*}S..6 


i.S97,Sqaia   I 


i,7te,iB«.cB 

1,679.87*56 


JJ.W    »04,S4j.»9O.9i      )o,S7],Uj.i) 


POLITICAL  ISSUES  OF  1870.  617 

I  will  say  in  simple  justice  to  the  former  administrations,  that 
probably  four  per  cent  of  the  increase  results  from  the  increase 
of  national  wealth.  But  making  all  due  allowances,  the  conclu- 
sion is  irresistible  that  this  remarkable  increase  in  our  revenues 
is  mainly  due  to  the  more  honest  and  efficient  collection  of  the 
taxes. 

The  reduction  of  expenditures  is  equally  striking,  including 
the  payment  of  interest  on  the  public  debt :  — 

The  total  expenditures  of  the  United  States  for  the  fiscal 

year  1867-68  were I3  7  7,340, 284.86 

The  total  expenditures  of  the  United  States  for  the  fiscal 

year  1868-69  were if32i>490»597-75 

The  total  expenditures  of  the  United  States  for  the  fiscal 

year  1869-70  were {292,124,055. 18 

The  fiscal  year  that  ended  eight  months  before  General  Grant 
was  inaugurated  showed  an  excess  of  receipts  over  expend- 
itures of  less  than  $29,000,000.  The  year  that  ended  four 
months  after  his  inauguration  showed  an  excess  of  nearly 
$49*500,000.  The  year  that  ended  June  30,  1870,  the  first  full 
fiscal  year  of  President  Grant's  term,  showed  an  excess  of  more 
than  $119,000,000.  Yet  the  rate  of  taxation  was  not  increased 
on  a  single  article  during  the  year.  Part  of  the  reduction  of  ex- 
penditures is  due  to  the  fact  that  such  war  claims  as  back  pay 
and  bounties  of  soldiers  are  now  nearly  paid  off;  but,  on  the 
other  hand,  the  pension  list  is  larger  than  ever  before,  and  in 
a  growing  nation  nominal  expenditures  constantly  increase. 
Making  all  due  allowance  on  both  sides  of  the  ledger,  this  great 
reduction  of  expenses  is  clearly  due  to  increased  economy  in 
the  management  of  public  affairs.  I  challenge  our  Democratic 
friends  to  gainsay  a  single  fact  that  I  have  submitted.  In  his 
recent  speech  at  Delaware,  General  Morgan  takes  occasion  to 
criticise  special  items  of  expenditure,  but  he  does  not  venture 
to  state  the  totals  either  of  receipts  or  expenses,  much  less  does 
he  compare  the  financial  work  of  the  present  administration 
with  that  of  the  last. 

But,  fellow-citizens,  you  have  a  right  to  know  what  has  been 
done  with  the  surplus  of  receipts  over  expenditures.  I  hope 
there  is  not  an  American  citizen  who  will  not  be  proud  to  know 
that,  from  the  inauguration  of  General  Grant  to  the  first  day  of 
the  present  month,  the  principal  of  the  public  debt  has  been 


6l8  POLITICAL  ISSUES   OF  1870. 

paid  and  cancelled  to  the  extent  of  one  sixteenth  of  its  whole 
amount,  and  the  annual  interest  has  been  reduced  by  the  sum 

of  at  least  $8,500,000, 

On  the  I  si  of  March,  1869,  the  public  debt,  less  cash 

in  the  Treasury,  was $3,525,463,260.0 

On  the  ist  of  Augusl,  1870,  tht  public  debt,  less  cash 

in  the  Treasury,  was 2,369,314,076.06  I 

Showing  a  net  decrease  of ^156,139,184.01 

This  result  has  had  no  parallel  since  the  war.     I  have  showa  j 
you  the  incomes  and  outgoes,  the  surplus  and  what  has  been  1 
done  with  the  surplus.     If  this   management  of  the  people's 
money  has  not  been  wise  and  honest,  please  to  show  me  an  ex- 
ample of  administrative  wisdom  and  honesty. 

It  is  a  peculiar  characteristic  of  the  American  people,  that  I 
they  arc  restive  under  debt,  and  are  willing  to  make  great  sac- 
rifices to  reduce  and  liquidate  all  their  pecuniary  obligations..] 
European  writers  have  frequently  noticed  this  peculiarity,  as  ] 
contrasted  with  the  disposition  of  other  nations  to  reduce  taxes  1 
rather  than  debts.  The  London  Times  recently  said  that  [ 
tions,  like  families,  have  skeletons  in  their  closets,  the  ghast- 
liest of  which  are  their  public  debts.  If  an  Englishman  sees  a 
statement  of  the  British  debt  once  a  year,  it  is  because  he 
makes  special  inquiry  at  the  proper  office.  The  payment  of 
the  principal  has  almost  ceased  to  be  a  subject  of  discussion. 
"But."  continued  the  Times,  "our  American  cousins  have  a 
strange  fancy  for  examining  their  skeleton.  They  bring  it  out 
of  the  closet  once  a  month,  weigh  it  and  measure  its  exact  size, 
and  publish  it  in  every  hamlet.  Its  decrease  is  the  glory  of  ad- 
ministrations and  the  pride  of  the  people."  I  rejoice  that  this 
is  the  spirit  of  our  people ;  and  I  hope  that  a  substantial  reduc- 
tion of  the  debt  each  year  will  be  our  fixed  policy.  But  I  do 
not  believe  that  the  industry  of  the  nation  should  be  taxed  to 
make  the  reduction  so  rapid  as  it  has  been  during  the  last  year 
and  a  half.  The  great  destruction  of  wealth  caused  by  the  war, 
and  the  great  strain  to  which  the  resources  of  the  people  were 
subjected  during  the  war  and  since,  make  it  a  matter  of  wise 
economy  to  lighten  the  burden  as  much  as  possible,  and  allow 
industry  to  recover  its  tone.  Again,  we  are  gradually  passing 
down  from  the  high  prices  and  quick  gains  of  war,  and  taxes 
should  be  adjusted  to  the  new  conditions.    I  cannot,  therefore. 


POLITICAL  ISSUES  OF  1870.  619 

sympathize  with  those  who  think  that  Congress,  at  the  late  ses- 
sion, went  too  far  in  the  reduction  of  taxation. 

In  addition  to  the  $173,000,000  of  reduction  previously  made 
by  Congress  since  June,  1866,  the  law  of  July  14,  1870,  provides 
for  a  further  reduction  of  taxes.  That  law  repeals  taxes  which, 
during  the  last  year,  produced  revenue  amounting  to  more  than 
$81,000,000.  A  part  of  this  reduction  will  take  effect  on  the 
1st  of  October  next,  and  a  part  at  the  beginning  of  the  next 
year.  The  reduction  made  by  the  law  of  July  14  is  distributed 
as  follows :  — 

I.   Internal  Revenue  Taxation. 

1.  All  special  taxes  (licenses)  except  on  distilled 

and  fermented  liquors  and  tobacco     .     .     .  1 10,6  74,000 

2.  Gross  receipts 6,784,000 

3.  Sales,  except  on  liquors  and  tobacco     .     .     .  8,804,000 

4.  Incomes,  reduction  to  two  and  one  half  per 

cent  on  incomes  over  |2,ooo 23,700,000 

5.  Legacies  and  successions,  articles  in  Schedule 

A,  and  passports 3,900,000 

6.  Stamps  on  receipts,  and  on  promissory  notes 

for  less  than  lioo        1,350,000 

Total  reduction  of  internal  taxes 155^212,000 

II.    Tariff  Duties, 

1.  On  tea,  coffee,  and  sugars {20,500,000 

2.  On  spices 1,500,000 

3.  On  fruits  and  nuts 750,000 

4.  On  pig-iron  and  scrap-iron 540,000 

5.  On  about  one  hundred  articles  made  free  of 

duty 2,750,000 

Total  tariff  reduction {26,040,000 

The  two  classes  of  reductions  thus  made,  if  measured  by  the 
revenues  of  last  year,  will  amount  to  more  than  $81,000,000. 
One  fifth  of  the  whole  burden  of  national  taxation  now  borne 
by  the  people  of  the  United  States  will  be  removed  by  this  law. 
The  law  also  provides  for  a  large  reduction  of  officers  now  em- 
ployed in  the  assessment  and  collection  of  the  revenue.  But 
on  a  few  articles,  mainly  agricultural  products,  the  tariff  was 
increased  to  the  aggregate  amount  of  two  and  a  third  millions 
of  dollars. 


G20  J^UTtCAt  ISSUMS  &F  ify^ 

-  On  tins  grot  measure  of  relief,  the  final  vote  in  fte  Hoose  of 
Representatives  was  taken  on  the  13^1  of  July.  The  ayes  aqd 
noes  were  callied,  and  Ae  vote  stood  144  ayes  and  49  noes. 
Fifty-five  Democrats  answered  to  ^Ir  names;  eigfat  of  tbeqi 
voted  for  die  bill,  forty-seven  against  it  Notone  CAio  Demo- 
oat  voted  fpr  it  There  may  have  been  reasons  of  par^  ^c^cy 
why  these  gentlemen  refused  to  Ui^ten  the  hardens  ci  the  pub-  • 
lie    I  leave  It  to  them  to  explain. 

Whether  the-teduction  was  wisely  tUstrilHited  among  the.  nu- 
merous subjects  of  taxation  is  a  question  on  which  tiae  best  of 
men  may  djfler ;  but  I  jiave  no  do^l4  that  the  great  mass  of  tihe 
people  will  approve  the  law  as  a  whole,  and  w\\\  fully  appreciate 
the  great  relief  it  afibrds.  They  will  be  likely  to  ask  our  Dcm- 
.ocratic  friends  to  explain  their  conduct  in  regard  to  it. 

Coocemii^  the  management  of. the  public  debt,  our  Demo- 
cratic firienda  have  various  opioioos.  They  have  transferred  to 
this  debt  the  hostility  they  bad  tq  the  Union  cause,  in  the 
maintenance  of  whtch.it  was  incurred.  Some  of  them,  like  the 
Democrats  of  Fairfield  County,  Ohio,  and  lilce  those  of  Mercer 
County,  and  their  representative,  Mr.  Mungen,  declare  openly 
for  the  repudiation  of  the  whole  debt,  principal  and  interest; 
others,  like  Andrew  Johnson,  propose  to  pay  the  interest  for  a 
few  years  longer,  and  then  repudiate  the  principal.  A  lai^e 
number  propose  to  repudiate  the  interest,  by  printing  and  then 
forcing  upon  the  creditors  of  the  government,  in  exchange  for 
their  bonds,  greenbacks,  which  bear  no  interest,  and  which,  if  the 
Democratic  doctrine  be'  followed,  will  never  be  redeemed.  This 
they  propose  in  face  of  the  solemn  provision  of  the  law  author- 
izing the  bonds,  that  the  amount  of  greenbacks  in  circulation 
should  never  exceed  $40o,cxx>,ooo.  These  various  opinions 
find  the  amplest  illustration  in  their  platforms,  speeches,  and 
votes  during  the  last  three  years.  Like  the  cause  of  the  Union 
during  the  war,  the  public  credit  has  been  advanced  by  every 
defeat  of  the  Democratic  party,  and  depressed  by  all  their  suc- 
cesses. 

On  the  other  hand,  the  Republican  party  hold  that  the  debt 
is  a  sacred  obligation,  for  the  payment  of  which  the  justice, 
honor,  and  good  faith  of  the  whole  nation  are  pledged;  that, 
apart  from  the  dishonor  and  wickedness  of  such  a  course,  its 
repudiation,  in  any  form  or  degree,  would  bring  measureless 
disaster  upon  us  and  our  posterity.    To  prevent  such  a  calam- 


POLITICAL  ISSUES  OF  1870.  621 

ity,  they  have  not  only  passed  resolutions  and  laws  denouncing 
repudiation,  but  they  have  rendered  repudiation  impossible  by 
an  amendment  to  the  Constitution  which  enables  every  public 
creditor  to  defend  his  rights  in  the  courts,  should  repudiation 
be  attempted  by  a  recreant  President  and  Congress.  It  has 
been,  and  is,  the  fixed  opinion  and  policy  of  the  Republican 
party,  that  the  honest  course  is  the  cheapest;  that  the  best 
mode  of  lightening  the  burden  of  the  public  debt  is  so  to 
improve  the  public  credit  that  the  debt  may  be  refunded  at  a 
lower  rate  of  interest  One  per  cent  of  reduction  of  the  rate 
would  save  the  nation  from  twelve  to  thirteen  millions  of  gold 
per  annum. 

The  election  of  General  Grant  was  the  signal  for  the  immedi- 
ate improvement  of  the  public  credit  Since  then  our  bonds 
have  steadily  advanced  in  value,  until  now  they  are  nearly  worth 
their  face  in  gold.  The  enhancement  of  our  credit  led  the 
Republican  party  to  believe  that  the  time  had  arrived  when  the 
debt  could  be  refunded  at  a  lower  rate  of  interest ;  and,  on  the 
13th  of  July  last,  a  bill  was  passed  by  Congress  which  provided 
for  funding  one  thousand  millions  of  the  debt  at  four  per  cent, 
three  hundred  millions  at  four  and  a  half  per  cent,  and  two  hun- 
dred millions  at  five  per  cent  The  law  carefully  guards  against 
all  extravagance  in  its  administration.  It  provides  for  no  spe- 
cial fiscal  agents  at  home  or  abroad.  The  work  of  refunding  is 
to  be  carried  on  by  the  financial  officers  of  the  government. 
My  own  fear  is  that  four  per  cent  is  so  low  a  rate  that  the  bonds 
will  not  be  taken  at  that  price.  If  they  are,  that  is  the  best 
feature  of  the  law. 

That  bill  passed  the  House  by  a  vote  of  139  ayes  to  54  noes, 
and  the  Senate  by  a  vote  of  32  ayes  to  10  noes.  Not  one  Dem- 
ocratic Senator  or  Representative  voted  for  it ;  five  Democratic 
Senators  and  fifty-three  Democratic  Representatives  voted 
against  it  While  they  are  explaining  why  they  voted  against 
the  great  reduction  of  taxes,  perhaps  they  will  also  be  so  good 
as  to  explain  why  they  voted  solidly  against  the  reduction  of 
our  annual  burden  of  interest  on  the  public  debt 

Many  differences  of  opinion  exist  among  the  members  of 
both  parties  in  regard  to  the  currency  and  the  banks,  and  mul- 
titudes of  plans  and  theories  were  proposed  at  the  late  session 
of  Congress,  few  of  which  secured  the  general  assent  of  either 
party.     But  a  few  practical  and   pressing  necessities  of  the 


POLITICAL  ISSUES   OF  1870. 

country,  in  connection  with  the  currency,  demanded  the  atten-il 
tion  of  Congress.  It  was  found  that,  while  there  was  a  glut  of 
currency  in  New  York  and  the  other  money  centres  of  the  East, 
the  West  and  South  were  suffering  greatly  for  want  of  currency 
and  banking  facilities.  It  was  easy  to  borrow  money  on  call  at 
a  low  rate  to  carry  on  stock  and  gold  gambling  in  Wall  Street; 
but  Western  and  Southern  business  men  found  it  difficult  to 
obtain  money  to  carry  on  the  great  industries  even  at  exorbi- 
tant rates.  A  most  unequal  distribution  of  banking  facilities 
had  been  made  during  the  war.  when  the  South  was  practically 
separated  from  the  Union.  It  was  found  that,  while  the  eleven 
States  cast  of  the  Alleghanics  and  north  of  the  Potomac,  with  a 
population  of  less  than  11.500,000.  had  1,078  banks,  and  more 
than  $232,000,000  of  bank  circulation,  the  twenty-six  great 
States  of  the  West  and  South,  with  a  population  of  30.000,000, 
had  less  than  $66,000,000  of  circulation.  Indeed,  Massachusetts 
and  Connecticut  alone  had  $10,000,000  more  than  all  these 
twentj'-six  Western  and  Southern  States  put  together.  There 
can  be  no  defence  of  this  injustice  to  these  great  and  rapidly 
developing  portions  of  the  countr>'. 

Another  evil  connected  with  the  currency  was  the  fact  that 
the  New  York  and  other  city  banks  of  the  East  held  in  their 
vaults,  and  were  allowed  to  count  as  part  of  their  lawful  reserve, 
$45,000,000  of  three  per  cent  certificates,  on  which  they  drew 
interest  from  the  government ;  while  all  Western  and  country 
banks  were  compelled  to  hold  greenbacks  as  their  reserve,  on 
which  they  drew  no  interest.  Moreover,  these  three  per  cent 
certificates  were  the  most  dangerous  form  of  the  public  debt. 
They  were  payable  on  demand,  and  in  a  time  of  financial 
panic  might  be  precipitated  on  the  Treasury  at  once,  to  its 
great  embarrassment. 

To  remedy  these  evils,  a  bill  was  passed  on  the  6th  of  July 
last,  which  provided  for  the  redemption  and  cancellation  of 
the  $45,000,000  of  three  per  cent  certificates,  and  the  issuing 
of  $54,000,000  of  bank  circulation  to  the  relatively  destitute 
States  of  the  West  and  South.  It  provided  also  for  withdraw- 
ing $25,000,000  from  the  Eastern  States  having  a  surplus,  and 
distributing  to  the  West  and  South  the  amount  thus  with- 
drawn. To  take  from  the  existing  banks  their  monopoly  of 
privileges,  and  to  prepare  for  a  return  to  specie  payments,  it 
was  provided  that  banking  should  be  free  to  all  who,  also  com- 


POLITICAL  ISSUES  OF  1870.  ^  623 

plying  with  the  other  terms  of  the  banking  laws,  shall  redeem 
their  notes  in  coin  whenever  it  is  demanded. 

This  bill  passed  the  House  of  Representatives  by  a  vote  of 
100  to  ^^,  Only  four  Democrats  voted  for  it;  forty-four  voted 
against  it.  I  invite  them  to  explain  why  they  voted  to  continue 
to  the  Eastern  banks  this  monopoly  of  privilege,  and  to  allow 
the  New  York  banks  to  continue  to  receive  interest  on  their 
reserves.  Perhaps  it  may  console  these  gentlemen  to  know  that 
their  votes  appear  to  have  been  approved  by  every  stock  gam- 
bler of  Wall  Street,  from  the  magnificent  James  Fisk,  Jr.  to  the 
humblest  of  the  curbstone  brokers. 

It  is  not  necessary  to  detain  you  with  the  record  of  the  De- 
mocracy in  their  solid  opposition  to  the  laws  passed  at  the  late 
session  for  the  enforcement  of  the  Fifteenth  Amendment,  for 
amending  the  naturalization  laws  and  preventing  their  violation 
by  fraudulent  voting,  and  all  the  similar  measures  that  so 
deeply  concern  the  success  of  that  party  in  the  South  and  in 
the  great  cities  of  New  York  and  Brooklyn. 

I  have  now  reviewed  the  leading  measures  of  the  late  session 
of  Congress,  on  which  the  two  parties  were  opposed,  and  I  con- 
fidently appeal  to  the  people  for  a  verdict  as  to  the  compara- 
tive wisdom  and  patriotism  exhibited  by  the  two  parties.  Now, 
as  during  the  war,  we  see  that  the  course  of  the  Democracy  is 
reactionary  and  obstructive,  their  policy  negative  rather  than 
positive,  destructive  rather  than  conservative.  Turning  from 
this  view  of  the  immediate  past,  I  invite  your  attention  to  the 
doctrines  put  forth  as  platforms  for  the  present  campaign  by 
the  two  parties.  I  do  not  greatly  value  party  platforms,  either 
for  their  political  wisdom  or  truthfulness ;  but  they  are  instruct- 
ive as  records  of  party  life  and  tendencies. 

It  may  be  interesting  to  political  antiquarians  to  observe  that 
the  two  leading  paragraphs  which  form  the  preface  to  the  Dem- 
ocratic State  platform  of  June  last  are  copied  from  the  resolu- 
tions of  the  Democratic  National  Convention  of  1840,  and  it  is 
noticeable  that  one  of  them,  which  speaks  approvingly  of  the 
Declaration  of  Independence,  is  brought  out  again,  after  a  con- 
tinued absence  of  more  than  fourteen  years  from  the  conven- 
tions of  the  Democracy.  This  is,  perhaps,  the  most  encouraging 
feature  of  their  platform.  During  the  absence  of  that  paragraph 
the  Declaration  of  Independence  was  not  in  high  favor  with 
these  gentlemen.     Perhaps  its  restoration  indicates  that  they 


f .■■">-'.  -:,-:^"^^^'^^- 


'"'^^''f^^^'T^.'^^'^'^WW 


6h      ,       j'ozjTiCMZ  isscras  of  1870. 

will  by  and  by  admit  that  its  doctrines  and  promises  ^ply  to  all 
citizens,  of  whatever  race  or  color. 

The  first  resolution  of  the  platform  denouncea  the  present 
tariff  as  a  gigantic  robbery  of  the  labor  and  industry  of  the  coun- 
tiy,  and  favors  a  low  revenue  tariff,  which  will  closely  approxi- 
mate to  free  trade.     On  the  tariff  question,  neither  of  the  great 
political  parties  is  united.     Opinions  vary  all  the  way  from  free 
trade  to  prohibition.     It  is  also  manifest  that  the  question  has 
assumed  a  local  rather  than  a  national  aspect.     Doubtless  th«| 
majori^of  Democrats  arc  free-traders,  but  ail  the  Democratic  3 
members  of  Congress  from  Pennsylvania  save  one  abjure  freei 
trade  and  &vor  high  protection  for  protection's  sake.     Republi- 1 
cans  of  the  Northwest,  and  in  tlie  agricultural  districts  generallyj 
favor  a  conuderable  reduction  of  the  present  duties,  and  somcj 
are  avowed  free-traders.     Other  Republicans,  like  the  Dema>J 
crats  of  Feonsylvania,  favor  the  highest  rates  of  protection  forJ 
protection's  sake.  ~ 

Now,  before  discussing  this  topic  fiirUier,  1  desire  to  oiake  a 
statement  which  will  not  be  disputed.  It  is  this.  For  tiie  pres- 
ent, we  must  annually  raise  by  taxation,  for  the  payment  of 
interest  on  our  public  debt,  about  $i30,ocx),ooo  in  gold.  Our 
expenditures  for  the  diplomatic  and  consular  service,  and  our 
payments  to  Indian  tribes,  must  also  be  in  gold.  No  prudent 
man,  therefore,  will  say  that  we  can  safely  reduce  our  gold  rev- 
enues below  $150,000,000.  Our  only  source  of  gold  income  is 
tariff  duties,  which  have  produced  an  average  of  $175,000,000 
per  annum  during  the  last  five  years.  By  the  law  of  July  last, 
tariff  duties  on  the  necessaries  of  life  have  been  removed  so  as 
to  reduce  the  annual  receipts  to  $150,000,000.  Now,  will  these 
Democratic  statesmen  tell  us  how  much  lower  they  intend  to 
reduce  our  gold  receipts?  They  declare  for  a  "low  revenue 
tariff."  Shall  it  be  low  at  all  hazards,  without  regard  to  the 
necessities  of  the  government?  Before  the  late  reduction,  the 
receipts  did  not  average  twenty  per  cent  more  than  is  actually 
needed  to  meet  the  gold  obligations  of  the  government.  But, 
both  before  and  after  the  reduction,  they  denounce  the  tariff  as 
"  a  gigantic  robbery."  I  beg  them  to  inform  us  how  great  a 
reduction  will  be  needed  to  transform  this  *'  robbery  "  into  the 
"low  revenue  tariff"  which  they  promise,  and  to  how  low  a 
point  they  propose  to  push  the  gold  revenues  of  the  govern- 
ment.   They  have  given  us  but  one  indication  as  to  their  mode 


POLITICAL   ISSUES  OF  1870.  625 

of  reduction.  They  demand  that  all  the  necessaries  of  life  shall 
be  **  absolutely  free  of  duty."  Will  these  gentlemen  tell  us  what 
articles  they  include  among  "the  necessaries  of  life"?  Do 
they  include  tea,  and  coffee,  and  sugar?  Certainly  not;  for  they 
voted  almost  unanimously  against  a  reduction  of  $20,500,000 
on  these  articles  at  the  late  session.  Do  they  include  boots  and 
shoes,  coal  and  manufactures  of  iron  and  steel,  cotton  and  wool? 
Certainly  not;  for  during  the  long  period  of  Democratic  rule, 
before  the  war,  when  the  necessity  for  revenue  was  vastly  less 
than  it  now  is,  the  duty  which  they  imposed  on  these  articles 
averaged  about  thirty  per  cent  ad  valorem.  That  was  the  ex- 
act rate  under  the  tariff  of  1846.  Do  they  include  beef,  pork, 
fish,  salt,  butter  and  cheese,  potatoes  and  oats,  wheat  and  flour, 
and  breadstuffs  generally,  among  the  necessaries  of  life?  Surely 
not ;  for  in  the  same  tariff  the  rate  on  none  of  these  articles  was 
less  than  twenty  per  cent.  What,  then,  are  these  **  necessaries 
of  life  "  which  they  will  make  "  absolutely  free  of  duty  "  ?  The 
fact  is,  there  never  was  in  this  country  such  a  tariff  as  they  pro- 
pose ;  and  in  our  present  condition  there  never  can  be,  if  we 
mean  to  pay  our  debts  and  support  the  government.  This 
utterance  of  the  Democratic  party  is  "  full  of  sound  and  fury, 
signifying  nothing."  It  is  a  vulgar  appeal  to  prejudice  and  pas- 
sion, devoid  alike  of  patriotism  and  sense. 

The  resolution  of  the  Republican  State  Convention  on  the 
tariff  is  manifestly  a  compromise  between  two  extremes  of  opin- 
ion, and  is  probably  not  altogether  satisfactory  to  either.  It 
recognizes  as  the  basis  of  the  tariff  the  necessity  of  revenue,  — 
demands  that  its  details  shall  be  so  adjusted  as  to  work  the  least 
hardship  to  industry  in  every  form,  and  to  secure  to  every  class 
of  producers,  not  a  monopoly,  but  a  fair  competition  with  for- 
eign producers.  This  appears  to  me  both  just  and  wise.  Any 
extreme  on  this  subject  will  bring  upon  our  producers  the  worst 
evil  that  can  befall  them,  which  is  sudden  and  violent  change 
and  constant  uncertainty.  Place  the  rate  so  high  as  to  be  nearly 
or  quite  prohibitory,  and  a  popular  reaction  will  set  in  and 
reduce  it  so  low  as  to  disorganize,  if  not  destroy,  enterprises  of 
immense  value.  This  has  been  the  sad  history  of  much  of  our 
tariff  legislation  for  the  last  fifty  years.  Two  counties  in  the 
district  which  I  have  the  honor  to  represent,  dig  one  fifth  of  all 
the  coal  and  make  three  eighths  of  all  the  iron  produced  in  the 

State  of  Ohio,     A  very  high  rate  of  duty  would  no  doubt  be 
v6l.  I.  40 


626  POLITICAL   ISSUES   OF  1870. 

acceptable  to  those  engaged  in  these  industries.  But  it  is  my 
clear  conviction  that  a  moderate  duty  steadily  maintained  is  far 
more  valuable  to  them  than  the  dangerous  fluctuations  which 
will  result  from  an  unsteady  policy.  Organized  as  American 
industry  now  is,  our  producers  should  not,  on  the  one  hand,  be 
subjected  to  the  unrestrained  competition  of  all  foreigners;  nor 
should  they,  on  the  other,  look  to  the  government  to  make  all 
their  enterprises  profitable.  In  the  divided  state  of  opinions  in 
Congress,  the  details  of  the  tarift',  in  many  respects,  were  not 
satisfactorily  adjusted.  For  instance,  the  present  duty  on  coal 
and  salt,  both  prime  necessaries  of  life,  should  have  been  in- 
cluded among  the  reductions. 

The  Democratic  Convention  also  denounces  the  internal  rev- 
enue system  as  unendurable  in  its  oppressive  exactions,  and 
demands  the  immediate  repeal  of  the  stamp  and  license  taxes, 
and  the  taxes  on  sales  and  incomes.  These  very  taxes  were 
abolished  by  the  law  of  July  13,  though  forty-seven  Democrats 
in  the  House  of  Representatives  voted  against  the  repeal.  Let 
this  resolution  and  this  vote  go  to  the  country  together.  But 
they  propose,  in  their  platform,  a  new  mode  of  managing  the 
internal  revenue.  They  say  this  ta.K  should  be  collected  by 
State  and  county  officials.  And  this  doctrine  is  put  forth  by 
that  party  which  has  so  long  been  preaching  a  crusade  against 
centralization  and  usurpation  of  power  by  the  general  govern- 
ment! The  rights  of  "independent,  sovereign  States"  have 
been  one  of  the  dearest  dogmas  of  the  party;  and  now  they 
propose  to  place  both  State  and  county  officers  under  the  com- 
mand of  a  Federal  officer,  appointed  by  the  President!  If  this 
be  not  consolidation  of  power  in  the  hands  of  the  national  ad- 
ministration, tell  me  what  it  is.  The  proposition  is  too  absurd 
to  be  debated. 

The  Democratic  Convention  also  demands  the  immediate  ab- 
olition of  the  national  banks,  and  the  issue  of  treasury  notes  in 
place  of  the  $300,000,000  of  national  bank  notes  now  outstand- 
ing. Let  us  consider  this  reckless  proposition.  Do  the  Democ- 
racy mean  that  there  shall  be  no  banks  in  this  country?  that  the 
United  States  shall  be  the  only  modern  nation  in  which  there 
are  no  institutions  of  credit,  whose  soundness  is  in  some  legal 
manner  guaranteed  to  the  people?  Or,  will  they  remand  us  to 
the  wretched  system  of  State  banks  from  which  the  National 
Currency  Act  so  happily  relieved  us?    If  this  be  their  purpose. 


1 


I 


POLITICAL  ISSUES  OF  1870.  627 

the  scheme  will  find  no  favor  among  the  millions  of  our  people 
who  suffered  untold  losses  under  the  old  system,  but  who  have 
never  lost  a  dollar  by  the  failure  of  a  national  bank.  So  far  as 
can  be  learned  from  its  terms,  the  resolution  proposes  no  substi- 
tute for  the  national  banks  or  their  circulation  except  a  direct 
issue  from  the  treasury  of  $300,000,000  of  greenbacks.  The 
Democrats  will  not  only  withdraw  the  circulation,  but  abolish 
the  banks  also.  This  proppsition  exhibits  the  blindest  ignorance 
of  the  whole  subject  of  money  and  credit  as  related  to  busi- 
ness. By  far  the  largest  proportion  of  all  the  exchanges  in  this 
country  —  the  purchases  and  sales  —  are  effected,  not  by  the 
use  of  paper  or  metallic  currency,  but  by  checks,  drafts,  bills  of 
exchange,  and  other  forms  of  bank  credit.  It  has  been  ascer- 
tained that  fully  ninety-five  per  cent  of  all  the  vast  commercial 
and  business  transactions  of  England  are  carried  on  by  these 
agencies,  and  only  five  per  cent  by  the  actual  use  of  money. 
The  business  of  the  New  York  clearing-house  during  the  year 
1869  amounted  to  more  than  thirty-seven  billions,  but  only  a 
little  more  than  one  billion  of  money  was  actually  used  in  doing 
it.  The  bank  is  the  modern  institution  employed  by  all  civilized 
nations  to  facilitate  the  operations  of  trade  and  to  economize 
the  use  of  money.  It  can  no  more  be  dispensed  with  than  the 
railroad  or  telegraph. 

In  case  this  policy  were  adopted,  and  the  sixteen  hundred 
banks  which  now  afford  facilities  for  credit,  deposit,  and  dis- 
count throughout  the  country  were  abolished,  and  the  Treas- 
ury issued  greenbacks  in  place  of  the  bank  notes  cancelled, 
to  whom  would  they  be  issued?  To  the  creditors  of  the  gov- 
ernment, to  the  holders  of  bonds  in  the  great  money  centres, 
thus  increasing  the  glut  of  money  in  the  cities  and  the  strin- 
gency in  the  country,  and  abandoning  all  those  who  need 
credit  in  the  transaction  of  business  to  the  tender  mercies  of 
private  brokers  and  money-lenders.  The  issue  of  greenbacks 
would  utterly  fail  to  meet  the  necessities  of  business,  which  re- 
quires credit  as  well  as  currency. 

There  are  still  graver  difficulties  in  the  way.  Under  the  late 
decision  of  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States,^  not  one 
dollar  of  the  new  greenbacks  would  be  legal  tender  for  any 
debt  existing  at  the  time  of  their  issue.  Indeed,  the  plain  in- 
ference to  be  drawn   from  the  opinion  of  the  court  is,  that  the 

^  Hepburn  v.  Griswold     See  ante^  p.  565,  note. 


628  POLITICAL  ISSUES  OF  1870. 

whole  issue  would  be  declared  unconstitutional.  Treasury  notes 
were  made  a  legal  tender  only  as  a  measure  of  overwhelming 
necessity  to  meet  the  demands  of  the  war.  Even  those  judges 
who  dissented  from  the  opinion  of  the  court  defended  the  issue 
of  the  legal-tender  notes  only  as  a  war  measure.  And  yet  the 
Democracy  propose  to  plunge  the  country  into  all  the  legal  dif- 
ficulties which  are  sure  to  arise  out  of  a  new  issue ! 

The  proposed  issue  would  so  depreciate  the  value  of  the 
greenbacks  now  outstanding  as  greatly  to  derange  business  and 
indefinitely  postpone  the  return  to  specie  payments.  As  the 
banks  are  now  organized,  the  chief  strain,  when  resumption 
takes  place,  will  fall  upon  them.  They  are  required  to  redeem 
their  own  notes  in  greenbacks,  and  must  therefore  march  abreast 
of  the  government  in  the  approach  to  specie  values.  The  De- 
mocracy propose  to  abolish  the  banks  immediately,  and  leave 
the  government  to  carry  the  burden  alone. 

The  expense  of  such  a  step  is  also  worthy  of  consideration. 
Some  people  seem  to  think  that  the  abolition  of  the  banks 
would  abolish  or  cancel  the  $39O,ocx),00O  of  bonds  on  which  they 
are  based,  or  would  at  least  cancel  the  interest  on  the  bonds. 
This  is,  of  course,  a  mistake.  The  stockholders  of  the  banks 
own  the  bonds,  and  they  would  still  own  them  and  draw  interest 
on  them,  the  same  after  the  abolition  of  the  banks  as  before. 

The  Constitution  does  not  permit  the  State  and  local  author- 
ities to  tax  the  bonds  as  such,  nor  is  the  principal  of  the  bonds 
taxed  by  Congress.  But  the  $390,000,000  of  bonds  that  con- 
stitutes bank  capital  is  taxed  by  the  States  in  the  form  of  bank 
stock,  and  Congress  taxes  the  banks  directly  in  many  ways. 
During  the  year  1869  the  banks  paid  taxes  as  follows:  — 

To  the  United  States J  10,029,982 

To  the  several  States 8,972,711 

Making  a  total  tax  of ^19,002,693 

Or  four  and  a  half  per  cent  on  their  capital.  This  $19,000,000 
of  revenue  would  be  wholly  lost  to  the  nation  and  to  the  States 
by  the  abolition  of  the  banks. 

Rut,  fellow-citizens,  this  topic  is  too  important  to  be  dismissed 
without  examination  in  still  another  direction.  If  the  immediate 
repeal  of  the  National  Banking  Law  caused  no  revulsion  in  the 
business  of  the  country;  if  there  were  no  loss  of  taxes  by  it;  if 
there  were  no  constitutional  objection  to  an  additional  issue  of 


POLITICAL  ISSUES  OF  1870.  629 

$3CX),ooo,ooo  of  legal-tender  notes,  and  no  violation  of  plighted 
faith  in  it,  —  I  should  still  insist  that  this  proposal  of  the  Democ- 
racy is  most  unwise,  and  that  its  adoption  would  be  extremely 
dangerous.  It  would  be  unwise,  because  a  currency  of  treasury 
notes  has  no  power  to  adapt  itself  to  the  wants  of  trade,  which 
vary  from  year  to  year,  and  from  month  to  month  in  the  same 
year.  An  amount  of  currency  amply  sufficient  for  the  winter 
and  spring  might  be  wholly  insufficient  for  moving  the  fall 
crops.  Any  fixed  amount  might  be  insufficient  at  one  time, 
and  redundant  at  another.  On  the  contrary,  the  currency  and 
credits  afforded  by  the  national  banks  are  regulated  by  the 
wants  of  trade,  and  increase  or  diminish  in  amount  according 
to  the  fluctuations  of  business.  The  adoption  of  the  Democratic 
programme  would  be  dangerous  in  the  highest  degree,  because 
of  the  great  temptation  it  would  offer  to  Congress  and  the  Presi- 
dent to  increase  the  volume  of  currency  in  place  of  levying  taxes. 
Suppose  that,  just  on  the  eve  of  an  important  election,  an  admin- 
istration finds  a  large  deficiency  of  revenue,  and  that  to  meet  the 
wants  of  the  treasury  new  taxes  must  be  levied.  Will  they  be 
likely  to  resist  the  temptation  to  print  a  few  millions  more  of 
Treasury  notes  to  tide  over  the  election?  Who  does  not  see  that 
this  policy  would  place  the  whole  business  of  the  country,  the 
value  of  all  contracts,  the  cost  of  living,  and  the  wages  of  labor, 
at  the  mercy  of  a  partisan  vote  of  Congress?  For  myself,  I 
dare  not  trust  the  great  industrial  interests  of  the  country  to 
such  uncertain  chances. 

I  conclude  the  discussion  of  this  topic  with  the  expression  of 
my  confident  belief  that  the  people  will  maintain  the  national 
banking  system  as  the  best  and  safest  they  have  ever  had.  Its 
establishment  is  an  honor  to  the  Republican  party,  and  a  great 
blessing  to  the  nation. 

Both  the  Republican  and  Democratic  conventions  united  in 
denouncing  grants  of  land  to  corporations  and  monopolies.  If 
these  resolutions  refer  to  the  immense  number  of  schemes  to 
aid  local  railroad  and  other  corporations  which  have  been 
crowded  upon  Congress  during  the  past  two  years,  they  are 
wise  and  opportune.  Scores  of  such  bills  were  introduced  at 
the  last  session,  though  very  few  of  them  were  passed,  if  any. 
It  is  well  for  the  people  to  warn  their  representatives  against 
the  mass  of  such  bills  which  are  now  pending  in  Congress. 
For  myself,  I  never  introduced  nor  voted  for  such  a  bill.     But 


630  POLITICAL   ISSUES   OF  1870. 

if  these  resolutions  are  intended  to  condemn  the  legislation 
which  lias  given  iand  to  aid  in  the  construction  of  the  great 
continental  railway  between  the  Atlantic  and  the  Pacific,  they 
arc  not,  in  my  judgment,  either  wise  or  opportune.  The  open- 
ing up  to  settlement  and  civilization  of  the  vast  wilderness  on 
both  slopes  of  the  Rocky  Mountains  was  nearly  or  quite  impos- 
sible without  these  great  roads.  Within  the  last  fifteen  years, 
botii  the  political  parties,  in  their  national  conventions,  have 
recommended  the  building  of  a  Pacific  railroad.  More  than 
ten  years  ago,  William  H.  Seward  made  a  speech  on  the  pas- 
sage of  the  first  Pacific  railroad  bill  through  the  Senate,  in 
which  occurred  this  striking  and  suggestive  passage:  — 

"  I  want  it  to  be  known,  I  want  it  to  lie  seen  and  read  of  all  men  here 
ajid  elsewhere,  that,  at  the  very  day  and  hour  when  it  was  apprehended 
by  patriotic  and  wise  men  tliroughout  the  land  that  this  Union  was  fall- 
ing into  ruin,  tlie  Congress  of  the  United  States  placed  upon  the  suiute- 
books,  for  eternal  record,  an  act  appropriating  ninety -six  millions  — 
the  largest  appropriation  ever  made  —  to  bind  the  Nortlieast  and  ihc 
Northwest  and  the  Southwest,  the  East  and  the  West,  and  the  North 
and  the  South,  by  a  physical,  nialecial  bond  of  indissoluble  union." 

The  bill  to  aid  in  the  construction  of  the  Union  Pacific  Rail- 
road became  a  law  in  1862;  in  1864,  the  bill  to  aid,  by  a  grant 
of  lands,  the  building  of  the  Northern  Pacific  road  was  passed. 
Both  political  parties  were  divided  in  regard  to  these  bills;  but 
the  completion  of  one  of  the  roads  has. fully  vindicated  the 
wisdom  of  the  legislation. 

The  most  important  law  passed  at  the  late  session  of  Con- 
gress relating  to  grants  of  land  was  an  act  amendatory  of  the 
law  of  1864  in  regard  to  the  Northern  Pacific  road.  It  allows 
the  company  to  issue  their  own  bonds,  and  mortgage  the  lands 
already  given  to  them;  but  it  enlarges  the  grant  very  little,  if 
any.  On  the  passage  of  this  amendatory  act  both  parties  were 
divided,  as  they  were  in  1862  and  1864.  I  have  stated  these 
details  for  the  reason  that  attempts  have  been  made  to  repre- 
sent that,  at  the  last  session,  large  grants  of  land  were  recklessly 
made  to  railroad  corporations. 

The  remaining  resolutions  of  the  Democratic  platform  — 
concerning  the  taxation  of  the  bonds,  the  enforcement  of  the 
Fifteenth  Amendment,  hostility  to  Great  Britain  and  Spain, 
praising  the  conduct  of  Democratic  Congressmen,  etc.  —  are 
but  the  stuffing  and  padding  which  have  become  so  cheap  and 


POLITICAL  ISSUES  OF  1870.  631 

so  common  in  such  conventions,  but  which  influence  the  popu- 
lar mind  far  less  than  politicians  suppose. 

In  reviewing  the  ground  gone  over,  there  appears  to  run 
through  the  career  of  the  Democratic  party,  both  before,  dur- 
ing, and  since  the  war,  a  malignant  consistency  in  opposing 
everything  done  or  attempted  by  the  Republican  party.  They 
were  unwilling  to  have  the  Union  saved,  if  it  was  to  be  done 
under  the  lead  of  the  Republican  party.  They  denounced  us 
for-  keeping  the  Southern  States  out  so  long,  but  opposed 
reconstruction,  apparently  because  Republicans  proposed  it.  In 
all  their  efforts,  they  seem  to  be  moved  by  their  hates  rather 
than  their  loves.  This  makes  them  a  party  of  negations,  of  de- 
struction and  revolution.  All  the  substantial  measures  which 
they  have  recommended  in  their  platforms  are  reactionary  and 
violent  All  the  ddbris  of  the  Rebellion  has  fallen  into  their 
party.  The  shattered  hopes  and  broken  purposes  of  the  Rebels 
have  added  bitterness  to  the  Democratic  spirit,  and  they  seem 
almost  wholly  destitute  of  both  sweetness  and  light,  those 
heaven-born  qualities  which  a  great  writer  has  described  as  the 
two  angels  of  civilization. 

I  know  of  no  political  party  in  modern  times  whose  record  is 
so  high  and  noble  as  the  Republican  party's,  —  of  no  party  that 
has  so  little  of  which  to  be  ashamed,  and  so  much  of  which  to  be 
proud.  Its  faith  and  courage  since  the  war,  in  meeting  and  con- 
quering prejudice  and  passion,  in  acting  firmly  on  the  conviction 
that  nothing  is  settled  until  it  is  settled  right,  have  been  even 
more  admirable  than  its  faith  and  patience  and  valor  during  the 
war.  The  upheaving  of  the  Rebellion  brought  to  the  surface 
of  political  life  some  bad  elements,  which  have  begun  to  show 
themselves  in  political  organizations.  Some  corrupt  men  have 
found  their  way  into  the  Republican  party,  and  some  mistakes 
have  been  made ;  but  the  head  and  heart  of  the  great  party  are 
sound  and  true,  and  it  is  still  not  unworthy  of  its  noble  record. 


'"'^ 


AMERICAN    AGRICULTURE. 

,  ADDRESS  DBUVBRED   AT  TRS  NORTHERN  OHIO  PAdC' 
I  CLEVELAND.    OHIO, 


MR.  PRESIDENT,— We  are  here  among  the  dements 
and  forces  out  of  which  are  developed  the  prosperity, 
strength,  and  glory  of  a  nation.  It  is  not  in  mighty  armies, 
great  navies,  magnificent  cities,  nor  indeed  in  any  great  aggre- 
gation of  wealth  or  splendor,  that  we  see  the  real  strength  of 
nations.  It  is  rather  in  the  mines,  and  shops,  and  farms,  where 
all  tliesc  displays  of  power  have  their  origin. 

When  the  great  steamship  is  struggling  with  the  tempest  far 
out  at  sea,  the  wise  man  does  not  look  at  her  trim  decks  nor 
her  gilded  cabins  to  determine  whether  she  can  outride  the 
storm.  He  goes  down  into  the  hold,  examines  her  ponderous 
engines,  her  stock  of  fuel,  the  strength  of  her  great  ribs,  the 
soundness  of  her  timbers,  the  thought,  courage,  and  discipline 
of  her  crew ;  and  if  all  these  be  in  good  order,  he  treads  the 
deck  in  confidence  and  laughs  at  the  storm,  for  he  knows  that  a 
skilful  pilot  can  take  her  precious  cargo  of  human  life  safe  into 
port.  Jupiter,  seated  among  the  gods  of  Olympus,  could  not 
have  hurled  his  red  lightnings  and  shaken  the  world,  had  not 
Vulcan,  in  his  black  forges  of  the  Cyclops,  fashioned  the  thun- 
derbolt out  of  the  rough  elements  of  the  earth.  I  look  around 
through  these  beautiful  grounds,  crowded  with  so  many  thou- 
sands of  people  and  filled  with  such  a  variety  of  products,  and 
say  again,  these  are  the  elements,  these  the  forces,  which  alone 
can  be  moulded  into  national  wealth,  power,  and  glory, 

I  know  of  no  more  fitting  theme  to  discuss  to-day  than 
Agriculture,  and  its  relation  to  National  Prosperity.  And  first 
I  inquire.  What  is  national  prosperity,  and  what  are  the  condi- 
tions upon  which  it  rests? 


AMERICAN  AGRICULTURE.  633 

It  took  two  hundred  years  to  explode  one  most  fatal  error,  — 
the  theory  known  as  the  mercantile  system,  which  is  founded  on 
the  doctrine  that  gold  and  silver  are  the  only  wealth,  and  that  all 
industry  must  be  so  managed  as  to  bring  more  into  a  coun- 
try than  is  taken  out  This  theory  made  England  a  nation  of 
shopkeepers,  created  her  colonial  system,  lost  her  her  Ameri- 
can colonies,  ruined  and  reduced  her  country  population  by  an 
unequal  distribution  of  wealth.  It  founded  great  commercial 
corporations,  and  piled  up  vast  wealth  in  the  hands  of  the  few, 
while  the  great  body  of  the  people  were  impoverished  and  im- 
bruted.  It  led  to  that  condition  which  a  poet  has  described  in 
the  line,  — 

"  A  nation  lies  starving  on  heaps  of  gold.*' 

It  led  Goldsmith  to  write  that  beautiful  poem,  "The  Deserted  Vil- 
lage," the  substance  of  which  is  expressed  in  a  single  couplet,  — 


**  111  fares  the  land,  to  hastening  ills  a  prey, 
Where  wealth  accumulates,  and  men  decay. 


>f 


About  the  time  of  our  Revolution,  the  mercantile  system  was 
exploded,  and  the  nobler  idea  was  reached,  that  wealth  em- 
braces every  product  of  labor  which  ministers  to  the  wants  or 
comforts  of  man  and  has  exchangeable  value.  National  pros- 
perity is  a  condition  wherein  the  muscle  and  brain  of  every  citi- 
zen have  the  freest  play,  and  lay  hold  of  all  elements  of  nature 
and  fit  them  for  the  use  of  man. 

Wherever  a  blade  of  grass,  a  sheaf  of  wheat,  a  shock  of 
corn,  is  produced ;  wherever  an  ore  is  dug  from  the  earth,  or  a 
useful  implement  or  machine  is  fashioned ;  wherever  any  pro- 
duct, by  change  of  form  or  by  transformation,  is  better  fitted 
or  becomes  more  accessible  to  the  use  of  man,  —  there  is  na- 
tional wealth,  —  there  a  step  has  been  taken  in  the  direction  of 
national  prosperity.  To  achieve  this  requires  the  harmonious 
co-operation  of  agriculture,  manufactures,  mining,  commerce, 
and  all  forms  of  industry,  which  are  not  enemies,  but  friends. 

To  realize  this  idea  of  national  prosperity,  two  great  forces 
must  be  brought  into  harmonious  action.  These  are  the  people 
and  the  territory,  —  the  body  and  the  soul  of  the  nation.  This 
relation  is  not  fanciful  but  real.  Who  shall  trace  the  manifold 
influence  on  the  national  character  of  the  soil,  the  climate,  the 
mountains,  rivers,  lakes,  and  the  various  aspects  of  nature? 
Humboldt  and  Ritter  call  these  the  great  organic  forces  of  civ- 


634-  AMERICAN  AGRICULTURE. 

ilization.     The  law  of  greatness  here,  as  in  the  individual  maji, 
15  a  sound  mind  in  a  sound  body. 

And  now  of  what  kind  is  tiie  body  of  this  repubhc,  —  this 
land  of  ours?  Let  us  study  its  character.  Our  national  do- 
main is  a  vast  irregular  triangle,  washed  by  two  historic  oceans, 
and  fringed  by  the  greatest  chain  of  lakes  on  tlic  globe.  I  said 
it  is  washed  by  two  historic  oceans.  The  sea,  the  ocean,  and  its 
shores,  has  always  been  the  scene  of  civilization,  The  Medi- 
terranean Sea  was  the  first  great  theatre  of  human  progress. 
Around  it  were  grouped  Greece,  Rome,  Carthage,  and  other 
states  of  antiquity.  When  these  decayed,  modern  nations  made 
the  Atlantic  and  its  shores  the  scene  of  their  triumphs,  and  it  is 
the  scene  of  their  triumphs  to-day.  But  the  course  of  empire 
is  still  taking  its  way  westward,  and  this  new  republic  is  now 
reaching  toward  the  ancient  cradle  of  the  race.  When  the  circle 
is  complete,  the  Pacific  will  be  the  theatre  of  civilization.  Our 
domain  is,  therefore,  washed  by  the  ocean  of  the  present  and  tlie 
greater  ocean  of  the  future ;  and  this  last  we  shall  command. 

But  let  us  look  within  this  great  domain.  By  what  a  won- 
derful arrangement  is  it  watered  and  redeemed  from  desert! 
The  surrounding  seas  and  lakes,  the  currents  of  ocean  and  air, 
the  great  chains  of  mountains,  placed  as  refrigerators  to  con- 
dense and  equalize  the  rainfall,  and  the  vast  river  systems  which 
drain  and  adorn  it,  all  indicate  the  grandeur  of  conception  and 
perfection  of  design  which  could  originate  only  with  Him  who 
holds  the  oceans  in  the  hollow  of  His  hands,  and  weighs  the 
hills  in  a  balance. 

Exclusive  of  Alaska,  this  national  domain  covers  three  and  a 
quarter  milHon  square  miles,  one  twelfth  of  which  is  river  and 
lake,  and  eleven  twelfths  land  fit  for  human  habitation.  And 
where  on  the  earth  will  you  find  such  a  vast  range  and  vari- 
ety of  climate  and  soil?  Trace  the  course  of  the  Mississippi 
River.  At  its  source  in  Minnesota  the  mean  yearly  temperature 
is  forty  degrees,  while  at  its  mouth  the  average  is  seventy- 
two  degrees.  Along  its  banks  grow  the  oak,  the  beech,  the 
sycamore,  the  willow,  the  bay,  the  cypress,  the  magnolia,  the 
palmetto ;  and  it  reaches  the  sea  among  the  orange  groves  that 
line  the  shores  of  the  Gulf. 

Who  has  fathomed  the  depths  or  measured  the  variety  and 
richness  of  our  mines?  Take  the  article  of  coal  alone,  on  the 
supply  of  which  the  greatness  —  I  had  almost  said  the  life  — 


I 


AMERICAN  AGRICULTURE.  635 

of  modern  nations  depends.  Belgium  has  518  square  miles  of 
coal;  France,  1,718;  Spain,  3,400;  Great  Britain,  12,000;  while 
the  coal  fields  of  the  United  States  cover  over  200,000  square 
miles  of  our  territory. 

Consider  our  magnificent  waters  and  railways.  Exclusive  of 
Alaska,  we  have  37,000  miles  of  sea  and  lake  coast,  and  85,000 
miles  of  navigable  rivers,  making  122,000  miles  of  navigable 
waters.  Then  we  have  over  40,000  miles  of  railroad,  and  hun- 
dreds of  thousands  of  miles  of  telegraph  line,  which  are  the 
nerves  running  along  the  vast  muscles  of  this  gigantic  body. 

There  is  one  characteristic  of  this  domain  more  striking  than 
any  other.  The  decree  is  written  all  over  it,  in  signs  and  letters 
which  cannot  be  misunderstood,  that  it  was  made  to  be  the 
home  of  one  people.  Its  unity  is  proclaimed  by  every  plain 
and  re-echoed  from  every  mountain,  and  the  decree  is  borne 
along  with  the  restless  sweep  of  its  great  rivers.  Who  shall 
estimate  the  influence  of  the  Mississippi  River  on  our  national 
policy  and  destiny?  When  the  French,  in  1800,  obtained  from 
the  Spaniards  the  territory  of  Louisiana,  President  Jefferson 
wrote  to  our  Minister  at  Paris  these  remarkable  words:  — 

"  There  is  on  the  globe  one  single  spot,  the  possessor  of  which  is  our 
natural  and  habitual  enemy.  It  is  New  Orleans,  through  which  the  pro- 
duce of  three  eighths  of  our  territory  must  pass  to  market,  and  from  its 
fertility  it  will  erelong  yield  more  than  half  of  our  whole  produce,  and 
contain  more  than  half  our  inhabitants.     France,  placing  herself  in  that 

door,  assumes  to  us  the  attitude  of  defiamce The  occlusion  of 

the  Mississippi  is  a  state  of  things  in  which  we  cannot  exist Our 

circumstances  are  so  imperious  as  to  admit  of  no  delay  as  to  our  course ; 
and  the  use  of  the  Mississippi  so  indispensable,  that  we  cannot  hesitate 
one  moment  to  hazard  our  existence  for  its  maintenance."  ^ 

The  great  Napoleon  said,  when  he  signed  the  treaty  that  gave 
us  Louisiana,  **  This  accession  strengthens  forever  the  power  of 
the  United  States,  and  I  have  just  given  tb  England  a  maritime 
rival  that  will  sooner  or  later  humble  her  pride."  Who  shall 
say  how  great  a  power  in  saving  the  Union  was  the  great  lesson 
of  unity  taught  by  the  Mississippi  River  to  those  who  dwell 
upon  its  banks  and  the  banks  of  its  tributaries  ? 

Such  is  the  vast  and  wonderful  territory,  the  body  of  the  re- 
public, whose  living  soul,  whose  inspiring  life,  is  the  forty  mil- 
lions of  free  people  that  inhabit  and  adorn  it.     To  make  this 

1  Jefferson's  Works,  Vol.  IV.  pp.  432,  457. 


636  AMERICAN  AGRICULTURE. 

soul  large  and  luminous  and  pure,  and  this  body  its  beautiful 
and  fitting  abode,  is  national  prosperity,  is  national  greatness,  is 
the  highest  glory  to  which  human  society  has  aspired.  This 
great  result  can  be  achieved  only  by  such  institutions  and  laws 
as  allow  the  fullest  and  freest  play  of  every  muscle  and  brain 
upon  all  the  forces  and  elements  within  our  national  domain. 
We  must  make  labor  honorable,  the  laborer  free  and  intelligent, 
and  the  fruit  of  his  toil  must  be  made  safe  and  secure  under 
wise  and  stable  laws. 

And  what  is  this  American  population  doing?  How  is  labor 
distributed  among  the  various  industries? 

Unfortunately,  our  statistics  are  meagre  and  unsatisfactory, 
and  it  will  be  cause  of  regret  throughout  the  world  that  the 
census  now  being  taken  is  not  a  greater  improvement  on  that 
of  i860.  The  statistics  of  other  countries  throw  some  light 
upon  the  general  question  of  the  distribution  of  labor.  By  the 
French  census  of  1862,  it  appears  that,  out  of  the  38,000,000  of 
inhabitants  of  France,  20,000,000,  or  five  ninths  of  the  whole, 
are  engaged  in  agriculture.  Even  in  Great  Britain,  a  country 
of  small  area,  dense  in  population,  and  renowned  for  her  com- 
merce and  manufactures,  one  third  of  the  population  are  en- 
gaged in  tilling  the  soil.  The  best  attainable  data  show  that 
three  quarters  of  the  people  of  the  United  States  are  engaged 
in  agriculture.  To  know  the  condition  of  agriculture  and  the 
people  engaged  in  it  is,  therefore,  to  know  the  situation  and 
tendencies  of  three  fourths  of  the  nation.  And  now  what  has 
this  nation  been  doing  in  regard  to  agriculture  since  the  set- 
tlement of  its   territory  began? 

The  wealth  that  had  been  brought  into  this  country,  and  pro- 
duced in  it  up  to  i860,  is  estimated  at  $14,183,000,000,  exclusive 
of  the  value  of  slaves,  of  which  $8,004,000,000,  or  four  sevenths 
of  the  whole,  was  agricultural  wealth,  thus  distributed :  — 

Value  of  farms %  6,650,000,000 

Farm  animals 1,107,000,000 

Agricultural  implements 247,000,000 

Total S  8,004,000,000 

In  other  words,  place  in  one  scale  the  wealth  of  all  our  cities, 
shipping,  railways,  telegraphs,  mines,  manufactories,  and  our 
agricultural  wealth  placed  in  the  other  outweighed  them  as 
four  to  three. 


AMERICAN  AGRICULTURE.  637 

The  great  destruction  of  property,  North  and  South,  during 
the  recent  war,  the  unusual  consumption  of  products  of  indus- 
try, the  loss  of  labor  and  its  diversion  into  unproductive  chan- 
nels, have  been  estimated  at  $9,ooo,cxx>,cxx> ;  but,  even  with  this 
fearful  drawback,  it  is  calculated  that  the  national  wealth  has  so 
increased  that  it  now  amounts  to  $24,cxxD,cxx),ooo,  of  which 
agricultural  wealth  constitutes  much  more  than  half.  Though 
this  volume  and  distribution  of  capital  are  interesting  and  im- 
portant, it  is  far  more  important  to  know  what  the  labor  of  the 
nation  is  achieving  year  by  year. 

The  latest  estimate  shows  that  the  labor  of  the  nation  is  annu- 
ally producing  $6,625,ooo,cxx>,  of  which  amount  $3,283,cxx),cxxD, 
nearly  one  half,  is  the  direct  raw  products  of  our  farms.  The 
value  of  farm  products  is  not  only  immeasurably  greater  than 
any  other  class  of  our  products,  but  is  nearly  equal  to  all  others 
combined.  According  to  the  report  of  the  Department  of  Agri- 
culture for  1868,  the  ten  leading  crops  of  that  year,  vegetable 
products  of  the  farm,  were  valued  at  nearly  $i,9CX),ooo,cxX). 
In  this  list  cotton  is  not  king;  corn,  hay,  and  wheat  are  each 
more  valuable. 

Consider,  also,  the  part  that  agriculture  plays  in  our  for- 
eign trade.  The  official  report  for  the  year  ending  June  30, 
1870,  shows  that  the  aggregate  value  of  our  exports  during  the 
year,  exclusive  of  gold  and  silver,  was  $436,oco,cxxD,  of  which 
$349,ooo,cxx>,  or  over  80  per  cent,  was  the  products  of  the  farm. 
Indeed,  our  part  in  the  work  of  feeding  the  world  was  never 
more  strikingly  exhibited  than  in  a  report  of  the  Commissioner 
of  the  Universal  Exposition  at  Paris,  in  1867,  in  which  it  was 
shown  that  the  annual  cereal  product  of  sixteen  kingdoms  of 
Europe  was  sixteen  bushels  per  head  of  the  population,  while 
the  annual  cereal  product  of  the  United  States  was  over  thirty- 
eight  bushels  per  head.  The  leading  kingdoms  of  Western 
Europe  are  gradually  coming  into  the  list  of  those  that  must 
be  permanently  fed  from  abroad.  In  the  work  of  feeding  the 
world,  Russia  is  now  our  only  formidable  rival. 

The  foregoing  facts  show  the  relation  which  agriculture  sus- 
tains to  our  national  strength. 

Grecian  mythology  tells  of  Antaeus,  a  mighty  giant  and 
wrestler,  son  of  earth  and  sea,  who  was  invincible  so  long  as  he 
remained  in  contact  with  his  mother  earth.  Hercules,  finding 
the  secret  of  his  strength,  lifted  him  into  the  air,  and  crushed 


638  AMERICAN  AGRICULTURE. 

him  to  death.  The  great  secret  of  our  national  strengh  is  ia 
our  agricultural  wealth,  born  of  earth  and  moisture.  Lift  the 
giant  from  the  earth,  and  he  ia  powerless;  cripple  our  hus- 
bandry, and  al!  other  industries  will  languish,  and  the  nation 
will  limp  and  stagger  in  its  march,  like  a  wounded  giant. 

Farmers,  1  have  not  said  these  things  merely  to  praise  agri- 
culture, nor  to  flatter  those  engaged  in  it.  I  have  not  sinned 
against  the  rule  which  Mr.  Greeley  lately  laid  down  for  occa- 
sions like  this.  I  have  only  been  trying  to  measure  the  interest 
which  you  represent  Its  magnitude  is  stupendous,  and  the 
results  you  have  hitlicrto  achieved  are  wonderful.  Will  they 
continue  and  increase?  This  is  the  greatest  question  that  can 
be  asked  or  answered  in  regard  to  your  work.  In  its  discussion 
I  may  not  give  you  much  aid,  —  I  have  not  sufficient  knowledge 
for  that ;  but  I  promise  I  will  at  least  give  you  trouble,  and  such 
trouble  as  may  lead  you  to  seek  and  find  a  way  out  of  it. 

1  do  not  fear  being  called  an  alarmist  when  I  say  that  a  most 
serious  crisis  is  close  at  hand  in  the  agricultural  life  and  pros-  J 
pcrity  of  the  country.      Some    elements  which   have    greatly  j 
aided  both  in  the  past  arc  now  about  to  disappear.  " 

First,  The  vegetable  mould,  the  rich  gift  of  unnumbered 
centuries,  is  nearly  exhausted.  You  have  drawn  on  that  bank 
till  your  credit  is  gone.  The  earth  will  no  longer  honor  your 
drafts  till  you  increase  your  deposits.  The  wheat  centre,  for 
example,  is  rapidly  travelling  weshvard.  In  i860,  the  six  New 
England  States  produced  but  eleven  quarts  of  wheat  per  head, 

—  enough  to  feed  her  people  three  weeks;  New  York,  enough 
to  feed  her  people  six  months;  Pennsylvania,  no  surplus.  From 
1850  to  i860,  in  the  five  Middle  States,  the  average  product 
per  acre  decreased  more  than  thirty  per  cent.  Ohio  now  pro- 
duces less  than  eleven  and  a  half  bushels  per  acre. 

Second,  Fertile  lands  have  become  very  expensive,  and 
twenty  times  more  capital  is  needed  now  than  was  needed  fifty 
years  ago,  to  carry  on  the  business  of  farming. 

Third.  There  is  a  wide-spread  spirit  of  speculation  engen- 
dered by  the  war  and  its  financial  effects. 

As  a  result  of  these  and  other  causes,  the  agricultural  popu- 
lation of  the  country  is  being  divided  into  two  distinct  classes, 

—  capitalists  and  laborers,  owners  of  land  and  workers  of  land. 
The  character  of  the  business  is  so  changed  that  the  brightest 
and  most  ambitious  of  farmers'  sons  are  rapidly  leaving  it  for 


AMERICAN  AGRICULTURE.  639 

other  and  more  attractive  pursuits.  For  many  years  the  ten- 
dency of  population  has  been  from  the  country  to  the  city ;  but 
recently  this  tendency  has  rapidly  increased.  It  began  sooner 
in  the  Old  World  than  here,  and  has  been  the  theme  of  much 
discussion  there.  It  is  said  that  three  fifths  of  the  population 
of  London  over  twenty  years  of  age  were  born  in  the  country. 
Alison,  the  historian,  says  that  cities  are  the  grave  of  the  human 
race,  the  country  its  cradle.  He  shows  that  in  the  agricul- 
tural districts  of  England  the  rate  of  annual  mortality  is  eigh- 
teen to  one  thousand  of  the  population,  while  in  the  cities  it  is 
forty-two  to  one  thousand. 

As  the  census  returns  come  in,  we  see  how  greatly  the  growth 
of  our  cities  is  overshadowing  that  of  the  country.  There  is  an 
actual  falling  off  of  population  in  most  of  the  agricultural  dis- 
tricts. In  the  twenty-three  cities  of  Massachusetts  that  have 
more  than  ten  thousand  population  each,  the  increase  has  been 
over  forty  per  cent  during  the  last  decade ;  while  in  the  rest  of 
the  State  there  has  been  a  heavy  decrease.  This  means  that 
small  farms  are  being  consolidated  into  larger  ones,  and  the  hum- 
ble homes  of  late  land-owners  have  become  the  abodes  of  ten- 
ants or  the  stables  of  the  more  fortunate  farmers.  This  process 
has  gone  on  in  England  until  one  hundred  and  fifty  men  own 
half  the  soil.     How  far  will  it  go  on  here  ? 

But  I  have  not  stated  the  most  serious  matter  yet.  This  has 
been  stated  broadly  and  strongly  in  one  of  the  most  thoughtful 
journals  of  this  country;  and,  though  I  do  not  indorse  it  in  all 
respects,  I  will  read  a  portion  of  the  article.  I  read  from  the 
Nation  of  July  15,  1869:  — 

"  Probably  the  most  puzzling  phenomenon  of  the  day  to  the  sociolo- 
gist is  the  growing  tendency  of  the  present  generation  of  native  Ameri- 
cans to  abandon  the  country  and  crowd  into  tlie  towns,  to  engage  in 
trade  and  manufactures.  The  newspapers  and  poets  are  all  busy  paint- 
ing the  delights  of  the  agricultural  life  ;  but  the  farmer,  though  he  reads 
their  articles  and  poems,  quits  the  farm  as  soon  as  he  can  find  any  other 
way  of  making  a  livelihood  ;  and  if  he  does  not,  his  son  does 

"The  European  farmer  and  his  wife,  who  do  their  own  work,  are 
peasants  ;  that  is,  persons  without  knowledge,  or  ambition,  or  tastes,  with 
few  desires  above  those  of  the  ox  in  their  plough.  The  European  farm- 
er's wife  has  no  social  aspirations,  no  silk  dresses,  no  piano,  no  monthly 
magazine,  and  no  dreams  or  hopes  of  genteel  existence.  She  is  a  robust 
animal,  who  handles  her  pots  and  pans,  and  bends  over  her  washtub  with 


1 


640  AMERICAN  AGRICULTUnB. 

thorough  enjoyment  of  her  work,  and  without  a  suspicion  thai  she  b 
cajialile  of  ajiytbing  higher  or  better. 

"  The  problem  which  the  native  American  farmer  is  trying  to  solve, 
liowever,  is  one  which  has  never  before  been  attempted ;  namely,  the 
infusion  into  tbe  agricultural  calling  of  a  degree  of  culture  and  n;fine- 
roent  hilherto  only  witnessed  in  towns  amongst  any  class,  and  never 
witnessed  amongst  our  farming  population  at  all.  In  fact,  he  \&  trying 
to  live,  while  laboring  with  his  hands,  as  only  superintendents  of  labor 
live  in  other  countries.  To  say  that  the  attempt  is  succeeding,  or  seems 
likely  to  succeeii,  would  be  lo  fty  in  tbe  face  of  all  the  facts.  There 
rises  from  every  farmhouse,  or  at  least  from  the  women  of  it,  a  wail  of 
discontent,  —  a  story  of  shattered  nerves,  worn-out  muscles,  lonely,  jo)-- 
less  lives,  which  are  maile  only  the  more  unbearable  by  the  glimpses 
which  the  literature  of  the  day  gives  of  llie  ease,  polish,  and  excitement 
of  city  life,  and  he  is  a  lucky  farmer  who  gets  his  children  lo  follow  his 
calling  one  minute  longer  than  they  can  help  it."  ' 

This  grave  allegation  has  been  before  the  reading  public 
more  than  a  year.  I  have  waited  in  vain  for  some  answer  to 
show  that  the  case  is  wholly  misrepresented,  or  at  least  greatly 
overstated.  But  I  have  met  no  denial  or  explanation.  Mr. 
Greeley  is  the  devoted  friend  and  champion  of  agriculture,  yet 
his  recent  chapters  on  farming  are  pastoral  lamentations  rather 
than  eulogies.  The  substance  of  this  grave  declaration  is,  that 
thoughtful  men  begin  to  fear  that  the  American  experiment 
of  making  the  farmer's  home  the  abode  of  industrious,  en- 
lightened, successful,  and  happy  citizens  is  likely  to  prove  a 
failure;  that,  to  make  the  experiment  successful,  there  must 
be  a  class  of  mere  farm  laborers,  who  are  to  have  no  aspirations, 
no  ambition,  no  education,  no  culture;  and  that  only  by  the 
aid  of  these  can  the  farmer  reach  the  ideal  at  which  our  fathers 
aimed.  Is  this  so?  I  do  not  assert  it.  I  do  not  yet  believe 
it.  But  it  has  been  broadly  asserted,  and  not  yet  positively 
and  authoritatively  denied.  If  it  be  true,  the  consequence 
will  be  appalling.  The  editor  of  a  leading  British  magazine 
told  me,  not  long  since,  that  English  mechanics  had  often  made 
a  fortune,  but  he  had  never  known  a  mere  farm  laborer  in  Eng- 
land to  rise  above  his  class. 

I  told  you,  fellow- citizens,  that  I  would  raise  questions  to 
trouble  you,  and  that  I  could  not  give  you  a  full  solution  of 
them.  I  will  endeavor,  however,  to  point  out  some  of  the  paths 
which,  I  believe,  will  lead  to  the  solution. 

>  The  Nation,  Vol.  IX.  p.  45. 


AMERICAN  AGRICULTURE.  641 

First,  you  must  take  Nature  into  your  counsels,  and  make 
her  your  ally.  The  mysterious  power  that  she  has  placed 
in  seeds  makes  it  possible  for  you  to  choose  them  so  wisely, 
that  from  one  you  can,  with  the  same  labor,  produce  twice  as 
much  as  you  can  from  another.  Make  this  power  your  servant. 
Explore  the  mysteries  of  soil,  moisture,  and  sunshine,  and  make 
them  your  slaves.  The  egg  of  a  frog  and  the  egg  of  a  fish  may 
be  so  alike  that  neither  chemistry  nor  the  microscope  can  detect 
any  difference ;  yet  from  the  one  comes  a  frog  and  from  the 
other  a  fish.  Through  the  whole  animal  kingdom  this  mystery 
runs.  You  are  not  wise  in  feeding  a  stunted  heifer,  when  the 
same  food  would  give  you  the  rich  and  abundant  product  of 
an  Alderney  cow. 

Again,  the  power  of  mechanics  may  be  made  your  willing 
and  efficient  slave.  Where  by  any  contrivance  the  muscle  of 
the  brute  or  the  force  of  steam  can  be  made  to  serve  you,  you 
may  pass  up  from  the  position  of  servant  to  that  of  com- 
mander. Let  the  brain  take  its  full  share  in  the  work.  Watch 
the  next  census,  to  see  to  what  extent  the  use  of  machines 
has  increased  since  i860,  and  you  will  have  a  good  index  of 
the  progress  made  in  ten  years  in  the  solution  of  this  great 
problem. 

Once  more,  the  diffusion  of  special  knowledge  .on  these  sub- 
jects is  of  the  utmost  importance.  The  agricultural  colleges 
will  do  a  great  work  in  this  respect.  But  will  their  students 
stay  on  the  farms?  I  doubt  it.  You  must  bring  culture  and 
special  knowledge  into  the  farmer's  house  and  into  his  fields. 
For  this  purpose,  such  an  exhibition  as  we  see  here  to-day  is  of 
the  greatest  importance.  This  is  a  great  school  of  actual,  prac- 
tical results,  and  every  farmer  here  to-day  is  both  a  teacher 
and  a  student. 

Permit  me  to  say,  in  conclusion,  that  there  are  three  forces 
that  must  be  brought  to  bear  in  the  settlement  of  this  problem, 
—  the  home,  the  school,  and  the  church,  —  and  they  are  our 
trinity  of  saving  influences.  Among  all  the  American  pro- 
ducts which  I  saw  at  the  great  Paris  Exposition  in  1867,  none 
so  stirred  my  pride  as  an  American  as  the  farmer's  home  and 
the  schoolhouse,  which  some  thoughtful  citizen  of  the  United 
States  had  erected  on  the  Exposition  grounds.  To  the  Euro- 
pean laborer  we  were  able  to  say :  "  Go  to  America,  and  we  will 
give  you  one  hundred  and  sixty  acres  of  land.     You  can  build 

VOL.    I.  41 


642  AMERICAN  AGRICULTURE. 

on  it  such  a  house  as  this  for  eight  hundred  dollars,  and  there 
will  be  erected  near  it,  at  the  public  expense,  such  a  school- 
house  as  that,  where  your  children  may  be  educated  without 
cost  to  you.  except  in  the  taxes  you  pay."  That  spectacle 
preached  a  louder  sermon  than  the  guns  of  Gravelotte  or 
Sedan. 

Make  the  farmer's  home  the  abode  of  industry  and  thrift, 
such  as  farm  labor  can  make  it ;  of  intelligence  and  culture,  such 
as  our  schools  and  public  press  can  make  it;  and  of  purity 
and  truth,  such  as  a  broad  and  unsectarian  religion  can  make 
it;  — and  you  will  have  solved  the  questions  that  I  have  raised. 

And  now  a  word  to  the  young  men  who  may  hear  mo.  Get 
intelligence,  culture,  and  conscience;  and  then  get  ground  to 
stand  on,  ground  of  your  own,  and  hire  out  to  yourself.  Be 
your  own  master  and  pay  yourself  the  wages  you  earn,  and  put 
the  profits  of  your  labor  into  your  own  pocket.  Do  not  for- 
ever be  commanded.  Command  something,  if  it  be  only  a 
horse  and  dray.  Be  assured  that  in  your  own  brain  and  arm 
lie  your  fortune  and  fame.  Look  to  yourself  for  resources,  and 
whatever  you  do,  let  it  be  only  in  the  last  extremity  that  you 
go  to  Washington  after  a  clerkship. 


GEN.    GEORGE    H.   THOMAS: 

HIS  UFE  AND  CHARACTER. 

ORATION  DELIVERED  BEFORE  THE  SOCIETY  OF  THE  ARMY 
OF  THE  CUMBERLAND  AT  THE  FOURTH  ANNUAL  REUNION, 
CLEVELAND,  November  25.  187a 


COMRADES  OF  THE  Army  of  the  Cumberland,  —  In 
obedience  to  your  order,  I  rise  to  discharge,  as  best  I 
may,  the  most  honorable  and  the  most  difficult  duty  which  it 
was  possible  for  you  to  assign  me.  You  have  required  me  to 
exhibit,  in  fitting  terms,  the  character  and  career  of  George  H. 
Thomas.  I  approach  the  theme  with  the  deepest  reverence, 
but  with  the  painful  consciousness  of  my  inability  to  do  it  even 
approximate  justice. 

There  are  now  living  not  less  than  two  hundred  thousand 
men  who  served  under  the  eye  of  General  Thomas ;  who  saw 
him  in  sunshine  and  storm,  —  on  the  march,  in  the  fight,  and 
on  the  field  when  the  victory  had  been  won.  Enshrined  in  the 
hearts  of  all  these  are  enduring  images  and  most  precious  mem- 
ories of  their  commander  and  friend.  Who  shall  collect  and 
unite  into  one  worthy  picture  the  bold  outlines,  the  innumerable 
lights  and  shadows,  which  make  up  the  life  and  character  of 
our  great  leader?  Who  shall  condense  into  a  single  hour,  the 
record  of  a  life  which  forms  so  large  a  chapter  of  the  nation's 
history,  and  whose  fame  fills  and  overfills  a  hemisphere  ?  No 
line  can  be  omitted,  no  false  stroke  made,  no  imperfect  sketch- 
ing done,  which  you,  his  soldiers,  will  not  instantly  detect  and 
deplore.  I  know  that  each  of  you  here  present  sees  him  in 
memory,  at  this  moment,  as  we  often  saw  him  in  life,  erect  and 
strong,  like  a  tower  of  solid  masonry ;  his  broad,  square  shoul- 
ders and  massive  head;  his  abundant  hair  and  full  beard  of 
light  brown,  sprinkled  with  silver;  his  broad  forehead,  full  face, 


^ 


644  GEN.   GEOJiGE  If.    THOMAS. 

and  features  that  would  appear  colossal,  but  for  their  perfect 
harmony  of  proportion ;  his  clear  complexion,  with  Just  enough 
color  to  assure  you  of  robust  health  and  a  well-regulated  life ;  his 
face  lighted  up  by  an  eye  which  was  cold  gray  to  his  enemies, 
but  warm,  deep  blue  to  his  friends;  not  a  man  of  iron,  but  of 
live  oak.  His  attitude,  form,  and  features  all  assured  you  of  in- 
flexible firmness,  of  inexpugnable  strength;  while  his  welcom- 
ing smile  set  every  feature  aglow  with  a  kindness  that  won  your 
manliest  affection.  If  thus  in  memory  you  see  his  form  and 
features,  even  more  vividly  do  you  remember  the  qualities  of  his 
mind  and  heart.  His  body  was  the  fitting  type  of  his  intellect 
and  character ;  and  you  saw  both  his  intellect  and  character 
tried,  again  and  again,  in  the  fiery  furnace  of  war,  and  by  other 
tests  not  less  searching.  Thus,  comrades,  you  see  him ;  and 
your  memories  supply  a  thousand  details  which  complete  and 
adorn  the  picture.  I  beg  you,  therefore,  to  supply  the  defi- 
ciency of  my  work  from  these  living  prototypes  in  your  own 
hearts. 

No  human  life  can  be  measured  by  an  absolute  standard.  In 
this  world  all  is  relative.  Character  itself  is  the  result  of  innu- 
merable influences,  from  wirhoui  and  from  wiihin,  which  act 
unceasingly  through  life.  Who  shall  estimate  the  effect  of  those 
latent  forces  enfolded  in  the  spirit  of  a  new-born  child,  —  forces 
that  may  date  back  centuries  and  find  their  origin  in  the  life, 
and  thought,  and  deeds  of  remote  ancestors,  —  forces,  the  germs 
of  which,  enveloped  in  the  awful  mystery  of  life,  have  been 
transmitted  silently  from  generation  to  generation,  and  never 
perish!  All-cherishing  Nature,  provident  and  unforgetting, 
gathers  up  all  these  fragments,  that  nothing  may  be  lost,  but 
that  a!)  may  ultimately  reappear  in  new  combinations.  Each 
new  life  is  thus  "  the  heir  of  all  the  ages,"  the  possessor  of  qual- 
ities which  only  the  events  of  life  can  unfold.  The  problems  to 
be  solved  in  the  study  of  human  life  and  character  are  therefore 
these:  —  Given  the  character  of  a  man,  and  the  conditions  of  life 
around  him,  what  will  be  his  career?  Or,  given  his  career  and 
surroundings,  what  was  his  character?  Or,  given  his  character 
and  career,  of  what  kind  were  his  surroundings?  The  relation. 
of  these  three  factors  to  each  other  is  severely  logical.  From 
them  is  deduced  all  genuine  history.  Character  is  the  chief 
element,  for  it  is  both  a  result  and  a  cause,  —  a  result  of 
influences  and  a  cause  of  results. 


GEN.   GEORGE  ff.   THOMAS.  645 

Each  of  these  elements  in  the  career  of  General  Thomas 
throws  light  on  the  others ;  for  throughout  his  life,  whether  we 
consider  causes  or  results,  there  appears  a  harmony  of  propor- 
tion, both  logical  and  beautiful,  which  can  spring  only  from  a 
genuine  soul,  true  to  itself,  and  therefore  false  to  none. 

From  the  meagre  materials  at  our  command,  it  appears  that 
he  was  of  Welsh  descent  on  his  father's  side ;  though  his  ances- 
tors resided  for  some  time  in  England  before  they  crossed  the 
sea.  Both  physically  and  intellectually.  General  Thomas  bore 
unmistakable  marks  of  that  sturdy  Cambrian  character  which, 
for  four  centuries,  defied  the  conquering  arms  of  Rome,  and 
which  preserves  to  this  day,  in  a  small  corner  of  Great  Britain, 
a  language,  literature,  and  body  of  traditions  all  its  own.  On 
his  mother's  side  he  was  of  French  origin;  she  having  de- 
scended from  the  Rochelles,  a  Huguenot  family  that  fled  from 
the  oppression  of  Louis  XIV.  to  find  an  asylum  in  the  New 
World.  Few  elements  ever  mingled  in  our  national  life  that 
added  such  purity  and  brilliancy  as  that  which  the  religious 
wars  of  the  sixteenth  century  sent  to  us  from  France ;  and  it 
would  be  difficult  to  form  a  happier  combination  than  the  hon- 
est solidity  of  the  Welsh,  joined  to  the  genial  vivacity  of  the 
French. 

Both  branches  of  Thomas's  family  settled  in  Southeastern  Vir- 
ginia, in  the  early  days  of  that  Colony,  and  became  thoroughly 
imbued  with  the  American  spirit.  His  own  birthplace  and 
home  were  in  that  region  of  Southampton  County,  Virginia, 
which  forms  the  water-shed  between  the  James  River  and  the 
streams  that  flow  into  Albemarle  Sound.  Southampton,  like 
many  of  the  counties  in  that  region,  was  named  by  the  colonists 
in  memory  of  their  old  English  home. 

George  Henry  Thomas  was  born  on  the  31st  of  July,  18 16. 
We  know  but  little  of  his  early  boyhood  beyond  the  fact  that  it 
was  passed  in  a  happy  country  home,  in  the  society  of  brothers 
and  sisters,  and  under  the  direction  of  cultivated  parents,  who 
ranked  among  the  most  respectable  and  influential  of  Virginia 
farmers.  One  class  of  influences  is  specially  worthy  of  notice. 
There  was  much  in  the  surroundings  of  a  young  Virginian  at 
that  time  to  make  him  justly  proud  of  his  own  State.  The 
glorious  part  she  had  borne  in  the  war  of  independence,  and  in 
that  noble  statesmanship  which  produced  the  Constitution  and 
government  of  the  republic,  was  not  forgotten  by  her  young 


646  GEN.    GEORGE  H.   THOMAS. 

men.  But  much  more  could  be  said  of  Virginia.  When 
Thomas  was  eighteen  years  of  age,  the  Constitution  of  the  United 
States  had  been  in  force  forty-five  years ;  and  during  that  period 
Virginia  had  held  the  Presidency  thirty-two  years,  had  filled  the 
office  of  Secretary  of  State  for  more  than  twenty  years,  and  had 
given  to  the  nation  its  greatest  Chief  Justice  for  thirty-four 
years.  These  honorable  evidences  of  leadership  gave  peculiar 
significance  and  popularity  to  the  doctrine  of  a  great  Virginia 
statesman,  embodied  in  the  now  sadly  famous  Resolutions  of 
1798,  in  which  Virginia  put  forth  the  theory  that  the  national 
Constitution  was  a  compact  between  the  several  States,  and  that 
each  State,  in  its  own  sovereign  right,  was  the  final  judge  of  any 
violation  of  the  Constitution,  and  also  of  the  measure  and  mode 
of  redress.  During  the  first  quarter  of  this  century,  Virginia 
did  not  see  that  the  inevitable  logic  of  this  theory  was,  first.  Nul- 
lification, and  finally  Secession.  She  saw  in  it  only  a  safeguard 
against  possible  aggression  on  the  part  of  the  national  govern- 
ment or  her  sister  States.  It  was  gratifying  to  the  pride  of  her 
citizens,  to  look  upon  their  proud  State  as  a  virgin  queen,  fore- 
most in  founding  a  great  republic,  and  nobly  supporting  it  by 
her  sovereign  will.  We  shall  never  do  full  justice  to  the  con- 
duct of  Virginians  in  the  late  war,  without  making  full  allowance 
for  the  influence  of  these  Resolutions  of  1798. 

When  Thomas  had  reached  the  age  of  twenty,  and  had  made 
some  progress  in  the  study  of  the  law,  his  family  secured  him 
an  appointment  as  cadet  at  the  Military  Academy  at  West  Point. 
He  entered  in  1836,  and,  after  a  thorough  and  solid  rather  than 
a  brilliant  course,  he  graduated  in  1840,  ranking  twelfth  in 
a  class  of  forty-t\vo  members,  among  whom  were  Sherman, 
Ewell,  Jordan,  Getty,  Herbert,  Kingsbury,  Van  Vliet,  and  others, 
who  afterward  attained  celebrity.  As  a  cadet,  he  was  distin- 
guished for  what  Bacon  has  called  "  round-about  common  sense" 
rather  than  for  genius,  and  for  the  possession  of  an  honest, 
sturdy  nature,  that  accomplished  whatever  he  undertook  by 
thorough,  intelligent,  persistent  hard  work. 

Assigned  to  duty  on  the  day  of  graduation  as  second  lieuten- 
ant of  the  Third  Artillery,  he  served  in  the  regular  army  for 
twenty  years,  during  which  time  he  rendered  honorable  and 
faithful  service  in  the  Florida  war  from  1840  to  1842;  in  com- 
mand of  various  forts  and  barracks  from  1842  to  1845;  in  the 
military  occupation  of  Texas  in  1845-46;   in  the  Mexican  war 


GEN,   GEORGE  ff.   THOMAS.  647 

from  1846  to  1848,  participating  in  the  battle  of  Buena  Vista 
and  in  nearly  all  the  operations  of  General  Taylor's  army ;  in 
the  Seminole  war  in  1849-50;  as  instructor  in  artillery  and  cav- 
alry at  West  Point  from  185 1  to  1854;  on  frontier  duty  at  vari- 
ous posts  in  the  interior  of  California  and  Texas,  leading  several 
expeditions  against  the  Indians,  from  1855  to  the  autumn  of 
i860.  During  these  twenty  years  he  was  repeatedly  brevetted 
for  gallant  and  meritorious  services,  and  rose  through  all  the 
grades  to  a  captaincy  of  artillery;  and  in  1855  was  made  a 
major  of  the  Second  Cavalry,  which  regiment  he  commanded 
for  three  years.  He  was  wounded  in  a  skirmish  with  the  In- 
dians, at  the  head-waters  of  the  Brazos  River,  in  August,  i860, 
and  in  the  following  November  went  east  on  a  leave  of  ab- 
sence. 

Here  let  us  pause  on  the  threshold  of  the  great  events  then 
impending,  and  inquire  what  manner  of  man  Thomas  had  be- 
come. He  was  forty-four  years  of  age;  had  walked  for  nearly 
a  quarter  of  a  century,  steadily  and  uncomplainingly,  in  the 
rugged  paths  of  a  soldier's  life;  had  made  himself  complete 
master  of  all  the  details  of  his  profession ;  had  honored  every 
station  he  had  occupied ;  was  in  turn  honored  by  his  govern- 
ment and  his  comrades ;  and  was  held  in  peculiar  honor  by  the 
people  of  his  own  State.  Virginia  had  presented  him  a  splendid 
sword,  as  a  recognition  of  his  high  qualities  and  gallant  con- 
duct in  the  Mexican  war;  and  the  proud  aristocracy  of  South- 
ampton, to  which  his  family  belonged,  esteemed  him  a  bright 
ornament  of  their  society.  He  had  scarcely  reached  home 
when  the  fearful  portents  of  the  storm  began  to  appear.  Shar- 
ing in  the  traditional  sentiment  of  the  army,  that  a  soldier  should 
take  no  part  in  politics,  he  had  never  identified  himself  with  any 
political  party,  and  probably  had  never  cast  a  vote.  But  we  have 
no  reason  to  doubt  that  he  shared  in  the  general  sentiments  of 
Virginia,  and  deprecated  any  agitation  which  should  disturb  her 
social  institutions.  During  the  winter  of  1860-61,  he  watched 
with  painful  anxiety  the  culmination  of  that  conflict  of  opinion 
which  preceded  the  war ;  and  he  regarded  the  growing  political 
strife  as  a  measureless  outrage,  in  which  both  contestants  were 
wrong,  but  in  which  Northern  agitators  were  the  first  aggres- 
sors. The  teachings  of  the  Constitution  and  laws  relating  to  the 
subject-matter  of  the  contest  were  sadly  obscured  by  the  legal 
subtleties  then  employed  to  defend,  or  apologize  for,  a  dissolu- 


648  GEN.   GEORGE  ff.   THOMAS. 

tion  of  the  Union.  The  President  had  declared  in  his  annual 
message  to  Congress,  December  4,  i860,  that  "the  Constitution 
confers  upon  Congress  no  power  to  coerce  into  submission 
a  State  that  is  attempting  to  withdraw  from  the  Union,"  and 
that  "  the  sword  was  not  placed  in  the  hands  of  Congress  to 
preserve  the  Union  by  force/'  To  the  officers  of  the  army 
this  official  declaration  of  their  commander-in-chief  amounted 
to  a  decree  that,  should  their  States  secede,  neither  he  nor  they 
could  do  any  lawful  military  act  to  prevent  it.  They  had  a 
right  to  regard  this  decree,  while  it  remained  unrevoked,  as  an 
order  for  the  regulation  of  their  conduct. 

Before  the  middle  of  February,  1 861,  seven  States  had  passed 
ordinances  of  secession ;  the  Confederate  government  was  act- 
ually set  up  at  Montgomery;  Southern  leaders  declared  the 
Union  lawfully  and  permanently  dissolved,  and  that  there  would 
be  no  war.  Looking  back  from  our  present  standpoint,  we  can 
hardly  understand  how  widespread  was  the  opinion,  both  North 
and  South,  that  the  Union  was  gone,  and  that  the  government 
was  powerless  to  restore  it.  To  an  officer  of  the  army  the  situa- 
tion was  painful  and  perplexing  to  the  last  degree.  Dissolution 
of  the  Union  without  war  would  carry  with  it  the  inevitable 
dissohition  of  the  army;  and,  besides  the  shame  and  humilia- 
tion which  an  officer  must  feci  at  the  ruin  of  a  nation  whose 
honor  he  had  so  long  defended  in  arms,  he  saw  that  he  must 
look  about  him  for  some  new  pursuit  by  which  to  earn  his  bread. 
What  will  Thomas  do?  What  path  will  he  mark  out  for  his 
own  feet  to  follow  through  this  bewildering  maze?  His  State 
had  not  yet  seceded ;  but  her  heart  was  on  fire,  and  no  one 
knew  how  far  she  would  go,  nor  how  many  would  follow  her  in 
the  work  of  ruin. 

Let  us  consider  more  closely  his  surroundings.  He  was  a 
major  of  the  Second  Cavalry,  a  regiment  organized  in  1855  by 
Jefferson  Davis,  Secretary  of  War,  out  of  the  ^lite  of  the  army. 
Either  by  accident  or  design,  three  fourths  of  its  officers  were 
from  the  Slave  States.  Its  roster,  as  printed  in  the  Army  Regis- 
ter of  i860,  shows  a  list  of  names  now  widely  notorious  in  the 
history  of  the  war.  Albert  Sidney  Johnston  was  its  colonel, 
Robert  E.  Lee  its  lieutenant-colonel,  and  W.  J.  Hardee  its  senior 
major.  Among  its  captains  and  lieutenants  were  Van  Dorn, 
Kirby  Smith,  Jenifer,  Hood,  and  Fitzhugh  Lee.  More  than 
one  third  of  its  officers  afterward  became  rebel  generals,  and 


GEN.   GEORGE  H.   THOMAS,  649 

others  held  less  conspicuous  rank  in  the  same  service.  The 
regiment  had  served  for  five  years  on  the  Indian  frontier ;  and 
its  officers,  thus  remote  from  the  social  and  political  centres, 
had  lived  on  terms  of  the  closest  official  and  personal  intimacy. 
It  is  difficult  to  overestimate  the  combined  influence  of  these 
brilliant  and  cultivated  men  upon  the  sentiments  and  conduct 
of  each.  We  have  seen  already  how  strong  were  the  influences 
of  family,  neighborhood,  and  early  life  that  bound  Thomas  to 
his  State.  All  these  were  now  thrown  violently  into  the  South- 
ern scale.  Besides  the  fact  that  his  wife  was  a  patriotic  Northern 
lady,  there  was  scarcely  a  countervailing  force  in  the  whole 
circle  of  his  domestic  and  social  life.  Given  these  facts  and  the 
impending  conflict,  what  will  be  the  conduct  of  a  man  pos- 
sessing clear  perceptions,  high  character,  and  real  nerve?  He 
would  be  less  than  a  man  who  could  choose  his  path  without 
the  keenest  suffering.  Only  a  man  of  the  highest  type  could 
comprehend  all,  suffer  all,  and,  resolutely  striking  through  the 
manifold  entanglements  of  the  problem,  follow,  with  steady  eye 
and  unfaltering  step,  the  highest  duty.  While  the  contest  was 
confined  to  the  politicians,  and  found  expression  only  in  consti- 
tutional theories  and  legal  subtleties,  the  wisest  might  well  be 
perplexed.  But  the  flash  of  the  first  gun  revealed  to  the  clear 
intellect  of  Thomas  the  whole  character  and  spirit  of  the  con- 
troversy; and  his  choice  was  made  in  an  instant.  Relinquish- 
ing the  remainder  of  his  leave  of  absence,  he  reported  for  duty 
at  Carlisle  Barracks,  Pennsylvania,  April  14,  the  day  that  our 
flag  went  down  at  Sumter,  and  less  than  forty-eight  hours  after 
the  first  shot  was  fired. 

His  regiment,  betrayed  in  Texas  by  the  treachery  of  General 
Twiggs,  had  come  north  to  be  reorganized  and  equipped,  and 
he  entered  at  once  upon  the  work.  Three  days  after  his  arrival 
at  Carlisle,  by  fraud  and  intrigue  in  her  convention,  Virginia 
resolved  herself  out  of  the  Union ;  and  (pending  a  ratification 
of  the  act  by  a  popular  vote  to  be  taken  on  the  23d  of  May) 
formed  a  treaty  offensive  and  defensive  with  the  rebel  govern- 
ment of  Jefferson  Davis.  The  Resolutions  of  1798  had  borne 
their  bitter  fruits.  The  same  day.  Governor  Letcher,  as  the 
chief  of  a  "sovereign  State,"  issued  his  proclamation  calling 
upon  "  all  efficient  and  worthy  Virginians  in  the  army  of  the 
United  States  to  withdraw  therefrom,  and  enter  the  service  of 
Virginia."     Three  days  later,  April  20,  Robert  E.  Lee  resigned 


his  commission,  after  a  service  of  thirty  years,  and  his  example 
was  followed  hy  hundreds  of  Southern  oificers.  With  but  two, 
exceptions,  all  the  officers  from  seceded  States  who  belonged 
to  the  Second  Cavalry  joined  the  rebellion.  Thomas  was  one 
of  tlie  two.  While  his  brother  officers  were  leaving,  and  at 
once  taking  high  commands  in  the  rebel  army,  a  comrade  asked 
Thomas  what  he  would  do  if  Virginia  should  vote  to  secede. 
'■  /  will  kelp  t"  whip  her  back  again,"  was  his  answer. 

On  the  23d  of  May,  the  people  of  Virginia  enacted  the 
mockery  of  an  election,  to  ratify  her  secession  from  the  Union 
against  which  she  had  already  taken  up  arms.  Their  over- 
whelming vote  in  favor  of  secession  swept  away  from  our  army 
nearly  all  the  Virginians  who  had  not  left  in  April.  With  the 
news  of  this  election  there  came  to  Thomas  the  passionate 
appeals  of  his  family  and  friends,  the  summons  of  his  State  to 
join  her  armies,  and  the  threatening  anathemas  of  them  all  in 
case  he  should  refuse.  He  answered  by  leaving  Carlisle  Bar- 
racks on  tile  27th  of  May,  and  leading  a  brigade  from  Cham- 
bcrsburg  across  Maryland  to  Williamsport,  and,  on  the  16th  of 
June  rode  across  the  Potomac  in  full  uniform,  at  the  head  of 
bis  brigade,  to  invade  Virginia  and  fight  his  old  commanders; 
and,  a  few  days  later,  he  led  the  right  wing  of  General  Patter- 
son's army  in  the  battle  of  Falling  Waters,  where  the  rebels 
under  Stonewall  Jackson  were  defeated.  Such  was  the  answer 
that  Thomas  made  to  the  demands  of  rebellion. 

Before  leaving  this  period  in  the  life  of  General  Thomas,  it  is 
due  to  his  memory  and  to  the  truth  of  history  that  I  should 
notice  an  attempt  which  was  first  made  in  the  South,  amidst  the 
passions  of  war,  to  throw  a  shadow  on  his  good  name,  by  de- 
claring that  he  sought  service  on  the  rebel  side,  and  only 
determined  to  stand  by  the  Union  when  he  failed  to  receive 
such  rank  as  he  desired  among  her  enemies. 

When  peace  reopened  intercourse  between  the  North  and 
South,  these  voices  of  calumny  were  silent,  and  remained  so  as 
long  as  Thomas  was  alive  to  answer.  But  when  he  was  dead, 
his  defamers  ventured  again  to  speak.  The  spectacle  of  a 
grateful  nation  standing  in  grief  around  his  honored  grave 
awakened  to  new  energy  the  envy  and  malice  of  those  who  had 
staked  all,  and  lost  all,  in  the  mad  attempt  to  destroy  that  re- 
pubhc  which  Thomas  had  so  powerfully  aided  to  save.  I  should 
dishonor  his  memory  were  I  even  to  notice  the  wicked  assaults 


I 


GEN.   GEORGE  H.   THOMAS.  651 

made  upon  him  in  rebel  journals  by  writers  who  withheld  their 
names,  or  shielded  themselves  behind  the  impersonality  of  a 
newspaper  editorial.  One  attack,  however,  —  and,  so  far  as  I 
know,  only  one,  —  has  had  the  indorsement  of  a  responsible 
name.  The  Richmond  (Virginia)  Dispatch,  of  April  23,  1870, 
contains  a  letter  from  Fitzhugh  Lee,  late  a  general  in  the  rebel 
army,  and  before  the  war  a  lieutenant  in  the  regiment  of  which 
Thomas  was  major,  in  which  Lee  asserts,  that  just  before  the 
war  Thomas's  feelings  were  strongly  Southern;  that  in  1861 
he  expressed  his  Intention  to  resign;  and  about  the  same  time 
sent  a  letter  to  Governor  Letcher,  offering  his  services  to 
Virginia. 

To  this  statement  I  invite  the  most  searching  scrutiny.  That 
prior  to  the  war  the  sentiments  of  Thomas  were  generally  in 
accord  with  those  which  prevailed  in  Virginia,  and  that  he 
strongly  reprobated  many  of  the  opinions  and  much  of  the 
conduct  of  Northern  politicians,  were  facts  well  known  to  his 
f/iends,  and  always  frankly  avowed  by  himself.  That  in  the 
winter  of  1860-61  he  contemplated  the  resignation  of  his  com- 
mission, we  have  no  proof  except  the  declaration  of  Fitzhugh 
Lee.  But  it  would  not  be  in  the  least  surprising  or  inconsistent 
if,  at  that  time,  it  seemed  to  him  more  than  probable  that  dis- 
union would  be  accomplished,  and  the  army  dissolved  by  polit- 
ical action  and  without  war.  Should  that  happen,  he  must 
perforce  abandon  his  profession  and  seek  some  other  employ- 
ment. If  it  should  appear  that  at  that  time  he  made  inquiries 
looking  toward  a  prospective  employment  as  professor  in  some 
college,  the  fact  would  only  indicate  his  fear  that  the  politicians 
would  so  ruin  both  his  country  and  its  army  that  the  commis- 
sion of  a  soldier  would  be  no  longer  an  object  of  honorable 
desire.  The  charge  that  he  ever  offered  or  proposed  to  offer 
his  sword  to  Virginia,  or  to  any  rebel  authority,  except  point 
foremost,  and  at  the  head  of  his  troops,  is  utterly  and  infa- 
mously false.  Not  a  shadow  of  a  proof  has  ever  been  offered, 
nor  can  it  be.  When  Fitzhugh  Lee's  letter  was  published,  he 
was  challenged  on  all  sides  to  produce  the  letter  which  he 
alleged  Thomas  had  written,  tendering  his  services  to  the 
rebellion.  His  utter  failure  to  produce  any  such  letter,  or  any 
proof  that  such  a  letter  was  ever  written,  is  a  complete  refuta- 
tion of  the  charge. 

A  few  weeks  after  his  first  assault,  Lee  did  indeed  publish 


652  GEN.   GEORGE  H.   THOMAS. 

what  purports  to  be  a  letter  written  by  General  Thomas,  dated 
New  York  City,  January  i8,  1861.  Whether  this  letter  is  gen- 
uine or  not,  and,  if  genuine,  whether  printed  as  it  was  written, 
we  have  no  other  evidence  than  our  faith  in  those  who  received 
and  published  it.  But  waiving  the  question  of  its  genuineness, 
and  of  the  correctness  of  the  printed  text,  I  appeal  to  the  letter 
itself.  It  is  not  addressed  to  Governor  Letcher,  nor  to  any 
rebel  authority ;  nor  does  the  writer  tender  his  services  to  Vir- 
ginia, or  to  any  government  or  person.  It  is  a  letter  addressed 
to  a  gentleman  who  had  advertised  in  the  newspapers  for  some 
one  to  fill  a  professorship  in  a  military  college  in  Virginia.  The 
letter  inquires  what  salary  pertains  to  the  situation.  It  ex- 
presses no  intention  or  willingness  to  resign ;  and  states,  as  the 
writer's  reason  for  making  the  inquiry,  that,  from  present  ap- 
pearances, he  fears  it  will  soon  be  necessary  for  him  to  be 
looking  up  some  means  of  support.  This  letter  strongly  con- 
firms the  views  I  have  taken  of  General  Thomas's  character  and 
feelings.   ' 

Since  the  publication  of  Lee's  letters,  testimony  has  come 
from  all  quarters  which  annihilates  forever  all  ground  for  this 
charge ;  and  now,  while  the  witnesses  are  living,  I  desire  to  put 
on  record  at  least  a  small  portion  of  their  testimony.  General 
Hartsufif,  now  and  for  many  years  a  soldier  of  whom  the  nation 
is  proud,  writes  that  he  saw  Thomas  many  times,  near  the  close 
of  i860,  in  the  city  of  New  York,  and  heard  him  discuss  the 
state  of  the  country,  in  company  with  many  officers  who  after- 
ward went  into  the  rebel  army.     He  says:  — 

"  General  Thomas  was  strong  and  bitter  in  his  denunciations  against 
all  parties  North  and  South  that  seemed  to  him  responsible  for  the  condi- 
tion of  affairs But  while  he  reprobated,  sometimes  very  strongly, 

certain  men  and  parties  North,  in  that  respect  going  as  far  as  any  of 
those  who  aftenvard  joined  the  rebels,  he  never,  in  my  hearing,  agreed 
with  them  respecting  the  necessity  of  going  with  their  States ;  but  he 
denounced  the  idea,  and  denied  the  necessity,  of  dividing  the  country, 
or  destroying  the  government.  This  was  before  the  actual  secession  of 
any  of  the  States,  when  the  prospect  of  war  was  not  strong." 

These  statements  of  General  Hartsufif  are  abundantly  cor- 
roborated by  other  testimony.  Let  it  be  remembered  that  the 
question  is  not  what  were  General  Thomas's  opinions  of  the 
political  causes  that  led  to  the  war,  nor  who  was  at  fault  in 
bringing  on  the  agitation;  but,  Did  he  give  any  countenance, 


GEN.   GEORGE  H.   THOMAS.  653 

sympathy,  or  support  to  the  idea  of  disunion,  or  of  war  against 
the  government? 

Listen  to  the  testimony  of  General  R.  W.  Johnson,  for  many 
years  a  gallant  soldier  of  our  army,  and  now  an  honored  mem- 
ber of  this  Society :  — 

"  After  the  surrender  in  Texas,  my  regiment  (of  which  Thomas  was 
major)  concentrated  at  Carlisle  Barracks.  .  I  was  intimately  associated 
with  General  Thomas  from  that  time  until  the  close  of  the  war.  Dur- 
ing the  Patterson  campaign  we  messed  together,  and  frequently  con- 
versed freely  together  in  regard  to  the  war.  I  remember  to  have  asked 
him  what  he  should  do  if  Virginia  seceded.  His  reply  was  characteristic 
of  the  man :  '  I  will  help  to  whip  her  back  again.*  General  Thomas 
never  flinched,  nor  faltered,  nor  wavered  in  his  devotion  to  his  country.'' 

General  Patterson,  under  whose  command  Thomas  performed 
his  first  duty  in  the  field,  in  May  and  June,  1861,  says  of 
him:  — 

"  General  Thomas  contemplated  with  horror  the  prospect  of  a  waF 
between  the  people  of  his  own  State  and  the  Union ;  but  he  never  for  a 
moment  hesitated,  never  wavered,  never  swerved,  from  his  allegiance  to 
the  nation  that  had  educated  him  and  whose  servant  he  was.  From  the 
beginning  I  would  have  pledged  my  hopes  here  and  hereafter  on  the 

loyalty  of  Thomas He  was  the  most  unselfish  man  I  ever  knew ; 

a  perfectly  honest  man,  who  feared  God  and  obeyed  his  commandments." 

What  weightier  testimony  can  be  conceived  than  that  of  his 
classmate  and  friend  of  many  years,  the  General  of  our  Army, 
the  great  soldier  with  whom  Thomas  served  so  grandly  in  the 
darkest  hours  of  the  war?  General  Sherman  has  favored  me 
with  a  letter,  from  which  I  quote.  After  stating  that  he  went  to 
Williamsport  to  visit  Thomas  early  in  1861,  he  says:  — 

"  It  was  June  i6th,  the  very  day  Patterson's  army  crossed  the  Potomac. 
I  had  a  long  personal  conversation  with  Thomas  that  day,  and  after  dis- 
cussing the  events  that  then  pressed  so  heavily  on  all  who  dreaded  civil 
war,  especially  the  course  taken  by  our  friends  who  had  abandoned  our 
service  and  gone  South,  I  asked  him  how  he  felt  His  answer  was  em- 
phatic :  '  I  have  thought  it  all  over,'  he  said, '  and  I  shall  stand  firm  in 
the  service  of  the  government.'  " 

General  Sherman  also  writes,  under  date  of  August  I,  1870:  — 

"  I  have  seen  the  letters  published  by  Fitzhugh  Lee,  sustaining  the 
assertion  that,  at  the  outset  of  our  civil  war,  Thomas  leaned  to  the  South. 
I  understand  the  Itate  of  his  mind  at  that  dreadful  crisis,  and  see  how  a 


1 


654  C£A:   GEORGE  H.   THOMAS. 

stranger  might  misconstrue  him.  Al  the  lime  to  which  Fitzhugh  Lee 
aUudes,  the  Buchanan  administration  was  in  power,  and  had  admitted 
that  the  Federal  government  could  not  coerce  a  sovereign  State ;  and 
his  Cabinet  did  all  they  could  to  make  army  officers  feel  insecure  in  their 
offices.  The  Northern  politicians,  as  a  rule,  had  been  unfHendly  to  the 
army,  and  when  the  election  of  Lincoln  and  Hamlin  was  complete,  they 
(the  officers)  naturally  felt  uneasy  as  to  their  future,  and  cast  about  for 
employment  Several  of  them,  I  among  the  number,  were  employed  at 
the  military  colleges  of  the  South,  and  it  was  natural  that  Thomas  should 
look  to  his  friend,  and  our  classmate,  Gilham,  then  employed  at  Frank 
Smith's  mihtary  school  at  Lexington,  Virginia.  Thomas  also  entertained, 
as  you  must  know,  that  intense  mistrust  of  politicians  to  which  the  old 
army  was  bred,  and  feared  the  compUcations  of  i860  would  result  ia 
some  political  compromise  or  settlement,  if  not  in  a  mutual  agreement  to 
separate ;  in  which  case  it  is  possible  he  would  haie  been  forced  for  a 
support  to  have  cast  his  lot  with  the  Southern  part.  It  is  more  than 
probable  that,  at  the  mess-lable,  Thomas  may  have  given  vent  to  some 
such  feelings  and  opinions,  then  natural  and  proper  enough.  But  as 
soon  as  Mr.  Lincoln  was  installed  in  office,  and  manifested  the  deep 
feeling  of  love  for  all  parts  of  the  country,  —  deprecating  civil  war,  but 
giving  the  key-note  that  the  Union  should  be  maintained,  even  if  it  had 
to  be  fought  for.  and  that  forcible  secession  was  treason.  —  then  Thonios, 
like  all  national  men,  brushed  away  the  subtleties  of  the  hour,  saw  dearij 
his  duty,  and  proclaimed  it,  not  by  mere  words,  but  by  riding  in  full  uni- 
form at  the  head  of  his  regiment  and  brigade,  invading  without  a  murmur 
his  native  State,  and  commanding  his  men  to  put  down  forcible  resistance 
by  the  musket." 

This  just  and  masterly  analysis  is  more  than  sufficient  to 
settle  the  whole  controversy.  But  I  cannot  dismiss  the  sub- 
ject without  opposing  to  his  slanderers  the  stainless  shield  of 
Thomas  himself,  —  his  own  unimpeachable  words,  recorded  by 
Colonel  A.  L.  Hough,  his  confidential  aid  at  the  time  they  were 
spoken. 

"  A  slander  upon  the  General  was  often  repeated  in  the  Southern 
papers  during  and  immediately  subsequent  to  the  rebellion.  It  was 
given  upon  the  authority  of  prominent  rebel  officers,  and  not  denied  by 
them.  It  was  to  the  effect  that  he  was  disappointed  in  not  getting  a  high 
command  in  the  rebel  army  he  had  sought  for ;  hence  his  refusal  to  join 
in  the  rebellion.  In  a  conversadon  with  him  on  this  subject,  the  General 
said  this  was  an  entire  fabrication,  not  having  an  atom  of  foundation ; 
not  a  line  ever  passed  between  him  and  the  rebel  authorities  ;  they  have 
no  genuine  letter  of  his,  nor  was  a  word  spoken  by  him  to  any  one  that 
could  even  lead  to  such  an  inference.    He  defied  any  one  to  produce 


GEN.   GEORGE  H.   THOMAS.  655 

any  testimony,  written  or  oral,  to  sustain  such  allegation ;  he  never  enter- 
tained such  an  idea,  for  his  duty  was  clear  to  him  from  the  beginning." 

Among  these  utterances  of  General  Thomas,  one  brief  sen- 
tence, simple  and  sublime,  is  an  epitome  of  his  character  and 
life.  It  is  this :  "  My  duty  was  clear  from  the  beginning  of 
the  war." 

It  is  not  enough  to  compare  the  conduct  of  Thomas  at  this 
trying  period  with  that  of  Northern  officers  who  remained  true 
to  the  flag.  The  real  measure  of  his  merit  is  found  by  compar- 
ing him  with  such  men  as  Lee  and  Johnston.  Let  us  compare 
and  contrast  the  conduct  of  Thomas  with  that  of  Robert  E.  Lee, 
who  became  the  military  chief  and  idol  of  the  Southern  Confed- 
eracy, and  who,  by  the  verdict  of  both  friends  and  enemies, 
possessed  many  high  qualities. 

We  have  seen  that,  on  the  20th  of  April,  Lee  resigned  his 
commission.  On  the  same  day,  he  wrote  to  a  relative  words 
which  will  remain  forever  as  the  most  veritable  picture  of  his 
character :  — 

"  The  whole  South  is  in  a  state  of  revolution,  into  wliich  Virginia,  after 
a  long  struggle,  has  been  drawn ;  and  though  I  recognize  no  necessity 
for  this  state  of  things,  and  would  have  forborne  and  pleaded  to  the  end 
for  redress  of  grievances,  real  or  supposed,  yet  in  my  own  person  I  had 
to  meet  the  question  whether  I  should  take  part  against  my  native  State. 
With  all  my  devotion  to  the  Union,  and  the  feelings  of  loyalty  and  duty 
of  an  American  citizen,  I  have  not  been  able  to  make  up  my  mind  to 
raise  my  hand  against  my  relatives,  my  children,  and  my  home.  I  have 
therefore  resigned  my  commission  in  the  army,"  etc. 

Lee  here  avows  his  devotion  to  the  Union,  his  feelings  of 
loyalty  and  obligation  as  an  American  citizen,  and  declares  that 
there  was  no  necessity  for  the  rebellion ;  and  yet,  after  these 
confessions  and  declarations,  which  surrender  utterly  and  for- 
ever all  grounds  for  the  justification  of  his  conduct,  he  abandons 
his  government,  and  offers  his  sword  to  Virginia  and  to  that 
rebellion  which  he  neither  justified  nor  approved. 

Like  Lee,  Thomas  deplored  the  suicidal  strife,  and  denied  the 
justice  or  necessity  of  rebellion.  Like  Lee,  he  was  warmly 
attached  to  his  family  and  friends,  to  Virginia  and  her  glorious 
traditions.  Like  Lee,  he  acknowledged  his  obligations  to  the 
great  republic,  of  which  all  the  people  of  Virginia  were  citizens, 
and  to  the  support  and  defence  of  which  he  had  registered  his 


6s6  GEN.   GEORGE  H.   THOMAS. 

solemn  oath  when  he  became  a  soldier.  But,  unlike  Lee,  when 
the  supreme  hour  of  trial  came,  he  rose  to  the  full  height  of  the 
great  occasion,  and,  esteeming  the  sanctity  of  his  oath  and  the 
life  of  the  republic  more  precious  than  home,  or  kindred,  or 
State,  drew  his  sword  to  put  down  a  rebellion  which,  even  by 
Lee's  confession,  was  both  unnecessary  and  indefensible. 

There  was  one  thing  in  Lee's  conduct  which  would  have  been 
impossible  to  Thomas's  nature.  Though  Lee  wrote  his  resigna- 
tion on  April  20th,  it  was  not  accepted  by  the  Secretary  of  War 
till  the  25th;  and  the  letter  of  the  Adjutant-General  informing 
him  of  its  acceptance  was  not  written  till  the  27th.  Yet  on  the 
23d  of  April  Lee  accepted  the  appointment  of  Major-General 
from  the  rebel  Governor  of  Virginia,  and  the  same  day  issued 
and  published  a  general  order  assuming  command  of  the  mili- 
tary and  naval  forces  of  that  State,  which  forces,  five  days  before, 
had  attacked  the  troops  of  the  United  States  at  Harper's  Ferry, 
and  also  at  the  Gosport  navy  yard,  and  were  at  that  moment 
levying  war  against  the  government  which  he  had  solemnly 
sworn  to  defend  "  against  all  its  enemies  and  opposers  whatso- 
ever." Instead  of  keeping  this  oath,  he  assumed  command  of 
the  armed  enemies  of  the  Union  two  days  before  his  contract  of 
service  was  cancelled,  —  a  contract  which  he  had  lately  renewed 
by  accepting  from  Abraham  Lincoln  the  commission  of  Colonel 
in  the  army  of  the  United  States.^ 

If  there  had  been  no  other  sufficient  motive,  the  religious 
respect  with  w^hich  Thomas  regarded  his  oath  would  alone  have 
prevented  him  from  following  the  example  of  Lee.  I  conclude 
the  discussion  of  this  topic  by  declaring  what  I  doubt  not  will 
be  the  just  and  unalterable  verdict  of  history,  that  this  was  no 
doubting  Thomas ;  that  he  did  not  need  to  behold  the  bleeding 
wounds  of  his  country  before  he  believed,  for  his  *'  duty  W'as 
clear  from  the  beginning,"  and  he  followed  it  without  a  murmur. 
Both  these  men  are  in  their  graves,  and  the  judgment  of  man- 
kind will  finally  assign  them  their  places  in  history.  Yox  the 
verdict,  I  confidently  appeal  from  the  Virginia  of  to-day  to  the 
Virginia  of  the  future. 

After  serving  through  the  brief  campaign  of  the  Shenandoah, 
General  Thomas  entered  upon  a  wider  field  of  action,  and  began 
that  career  which  his  country  knows  by  heart.  It  is  not  possi- 
ble, within  the  limits  of  this  address,  to  give  more  than  the  most 

^  See  Appendices  to  this  Oration. 


GEN.   GEORGE  H.    THOMAS.  657 

meagre  outline  of  his  military  services  during  the  war  for  the 
Union.  I  shall,  therefore,  attempt  no  more  than  to  state  the 
nature  and  scope  of  his  work,  and  to  consider  some  of  the  qual- 
ities which  he  exhibited  while  performing  it. 

The  fame  of  General  Thomas  as  a  soldier  is  linked  forever 
with  the  history  of  the  Army  of  the  Cumberland;  for  in  i§6i 
he  mustered  in  and  organized  its  first  brigade,  and  in  1865,  ^^ 
Nashville,  the  scene  of  his  greatest  victory,  he  passed  in  farewell 
review,  and  mustered  out  of  the  service,  more  than  one  hundred 
and  thirty  thousand  of  its  war-worn  veterans. 

The  Department  of  the  Cumberland,  embracing,  at  first,  only 
Tennessee  and  Kentucky,  was  created  by  the  War  Department, 
August  15,  1 86 1,  and  General  Robert  Anderson  placed  in  com- 
mand. At  Anderson's  request,  Sherman,  Thomas,  and  Buell 
were  made  Brigadier-Generals  of  Volunteers,  and  assigned  to  his 
command.  The  remainder  of  1861  was  the  period  of  organ- 
ization. The  first  month's  work  that  Thomas  performed  in 
the  department  was  at  Camp  Dick  Robinson,  where  he  mus- 
tered into  service  eleven  regiments  and  three  batteries  of  Ohio, 
Indiana,  Kentucky,  and  Tennessee  troops.  These  he  organized 
into  the  First  Brigade,  which  formed,  first,  the  nucleus  of  the 
division,  then  of  the  corps,  and  finally  of  the  great  army  which 
he  afterward  commanded  so  long. 

In  order  to  appreciate  the  career  of  General  Thomas,  it  is 
necessary  to  comprehend,  not  only  the  magnitude  of  the  work 
to  be  accomplished  by  the  Army  of  the  Cumberland,  but  also 
the  relation  which  that  army  and  its  work  sustained  to  the  other 
great  armies  of  the  Union. 

It  is  now  easy  to  see  that,  between  the  Northern  and  Southern 
States,  there  are  three  great  natural  pathways  of  invasion ;  and 
that,  to  put  down  the  rebellion,  it  was  necessary  that  each  of 
these  be  traversed  and  held  by  a  great  army.  The  first  was  the 
long  and  narrow  slope  from  the  chain  of  the  Alleghany  and 
Cumberland  Mountains  to  the  Atlantic  coast.  The  second  was 
the  great  Western  slope  from  the  same  mountain  chain  to  the 
Ohio,  the  Tennessee,  and  the  Tombigbee  Rivers,  and  extending 
southward  to  the  Gulf.  The  third  was  the  Mississippi  River 
itself,  and  the  immediate  territory  along  its  banks.  Peculiarities 
of  topography  and  surroundings  required  for  each  of  these  lines 
different  modes  of  supplying  an  army  and  of  conducting  cam- 
paigns. 

VOL.  I.  4^ 


6s8  GEN,   GEORGE  H.   THOMAS. 

The  army  of  the  East,  which  operated  on  the  first  line,  was 
in  great  part  supplied  from  the  sea,  and  many  of  its  operations 
were  carried  on  in  conjunction  with  the  navy.  The  army  on 
the  third,  or  western  line,  was  supplied  from  the  Mississippi 
River,  and  the  gun-boat  service  formed  a  novel  and  important 
feature  in  its  military  operations.  The  Army  of  the  Cumber- 
land held  the  centre  line,  which  was  in  many  respects  the  most 
difficult  of  all.  There  could  be  but  little  naval  co-operation 
with  its  movements,  and  only  for  a  short  distance  could  it  be 
supplied  by  river  transportation.  Its  main  supply  was  by  a 
single  line  of  railroad,  running  hundreds  of  miles  among  a 
hostile  population,  and  requiring  a  heavy  force  for  its  protec- 
tion. The  great  central  pathway  led  into  the  heart  of  the 
rebellion.  It  crossed  the  only  line  of  railway  (the  Memphis 
and  Charleston)  which  united  the  Eastern  and  Western  States 
of  the  Confederacy.  Extraordinary  obstacles  lay  in  the  path- 
way of  an  army  moving  southward  over  this  central  route. 
Besides  the  broad  and  deep  rivers  which  cross  it,  .he  great 
mountain  chain  itself,  bending  sharply  near  the  Georgia  line, 
sweeps  westward  until  it  loses  itself  in  the  low  sand-hills  and 
plains  of  Alabama  and  Mississippi,  thus  presenting  a  most  for- 
midable barrier  to  an  army  invading  the  Gulf  States.  The  great 
gateway  of  the  mountain  chain  is  at  Chattanooga,  where  the 
Tennessee  River  bursts  through  the  barrier. 

Nothing  more  strikingly  illustrates  the  military  genius  and 
foresight  of  General  Sherman,  than  the  fact  that,  so  early  as 
October,  1861,  he  comprehended  the  vastness  of  the  struggle 
upon  which  the  nation  had  entered,  and  the  vital  importance 
of  this  central  line  of  operation.  At  that  time,  being  in  com- 
mand of  the  Department  of  the  Cumberland,  he  sent  to  the 
War  Department  his  estimate :  **  That  to  advance  on  the  line 
of  the  Louisville  and  Nashville  Railroad  would  require  an 
army  of  at  least  sixty  thousand  men ;  and  to  advance  the  great 
line  of  the  centre  to  its  ultimate  objective,  and  reap  the  legiti- 
mate rewards,  would  require  an  army  of  two  hundred  thousand 
men." 

This  estimate  was  not  only  construed  to  his  prejudice  by 
the  authorities  at  Washington,  but  you  will  remember  that  the 
public  journals  regarded  his  views  as  a  conclusive  evidence  of 
insanity !  At  his  own  request,  Sherman  was  relieved  of  the 
command,  and  on  the  15th  of  November  went  to  duty  in  an- 


GEN.    GEORGE  H,   THOMAS.  659 

other  department,  not  to  return  again  to  the  great  h'ne  of  the 
centre  until  the  country  and  its  authorities  had  been  educated 
up  to  his  views  of  1861.  On  the  15th  of  November,  General 
Buell  was  placed  in  command  of  the  department ;  and,  as  if  to 
narrow  the  field  of  operations  and  restrict  the  views  which 
General  Sherman  had  expressed,  the  name  of  the  department 
was  changed,  by  order  of  the  Secretary  of  War,  to  "  The  De- 
partment of  the  Ohio." 

The  rebel  authorities  early  saw  the  vital  importance  of  push- 
ing as  far  North  as  possible  on  this  central  line ;  and  before 
the  end  of  1861  they  had  established  themselves  in  force  on  a 
line  extending  from  the  base  of  the  Cumberland  Mountains,  by 
way  of  Bowling  Green,  Forts  Donelson  and  Henry,  to  Colum- 
bus on  the  Mississippi.  While  the  forces  at  Cairo,  under  Gen- 
eral Grant,  were  threatening  the  left  of  this  line  at  Columbus, 
and  General  Buell's  main  force  was  preparing  to  move  on  Bowl- 
ing Green  against  Albert  Sidney  Johnston,  who  commanded  the 
centre  and  right,  a  rebel  movement  was  in  progress  in  Eastern 
and  Southern  Kentucky,  which  threatened  the  left  and  rear  of 
General  Buell's  army,  and  would  seriously  disturb  its  movement 
against  Johnston.  In  the  early  autumn  of  1861  the  rebel  au- 
thorities had  organized  a  brigade  in  Eastern  Tennessee  and 
Southwestern  Virginia,  for  the  special  purpose  of  guarding  the 
mountain  passes  at  Pound  Gap  and  Cumberland  Gap.  Before 
the  end  of  the  year  they  had  also  organized  two  active  forces 
to  operate  in  front  of  these  gaps,  —  one  under  Marshall,  which 
moved  from  the  neighborhood  of  Pound  Gap  down  the  Sandy 
Valley,  and  the  other,  a  larger  force,  under  Zollicoffer,  which 
occupied  the  road  leading  from  Cumberland  Gap  to  Lexington. 

The  first  work  of  General  Buell's  campaign  was  to  drive  back 
these  forces,  and  occupy  the  two  mountain  passes,  in  order  to 
protect  his  flank  and  rear.  General  Thomas  had  been  placed 
in  command  of  the  First  Division  of  the  army,  and  on  the  31st 
of  December  was  ordered  to  move  against  Zollicoffer.  In 
pursuance  of  this  order  he  fought  and  won  the  battle  of  Mill 
Springs,  January  19,  1862,  which  was  by  far  the  most  important 
military  success  that  had  yet  been  achieved  west  of  Virginia, 
and  which,  with  the  exception  of  the  defeat  of  Marshall,  near 
Prestonburg,  nine  days  before,  was  the  first  victory  in  the  de- 
partment. In  this  battle  General  Thomas  laid  the  foundation 
of  his  fame  in  the  army  of  the  centre.     It  was  the  largest  and 


GEN.   GEORGE  H.   THOMAS. 


most  important  command  that  he  had  held  up  to  that  time,  and 
his  troops  came  out  of  the  fight  with  the  strongest  confidence 
in  his  qualities  as  a  commander.  This  battle  fully  launched 
him  upon  his  career;  and  from  that  time  to  the  end  of  tlie  war 
his  life  was  so  crowded  with  events,  that  I  can  do  no  more  than 
note  the  stages  of  command  and  responsibility  through  which 
he  passed;  and  even  this  I  do  only  to  recall  it  to  your  minds 
as  a  subject  of  reflection. 

From  the  30th  of  November,  1 8G1 ,  to  the  30th  of  September, 
i8(53,  he  commanded  a  division  of  General  Buell's  army  without 
intermission,  except  that  during  the  months  of  May  and  June 
he  commanded  the  right  wing  of  the  Army  of  the  Tennessee, 
in  and  around  Corinth,  On  the  30th  of  September.  1862.  he 
was  appointed  second  in  command  of  the  Army  of  the  Ohio, 
and  served  in  that  capacity  in  the  battle  of  Perryville,  and  until 
October  30,  1862,  when  the  old  name  of  "  Department  of  the 
Cumberland  "  was  restored,  and  General  Rosecrans  assumed 
command.  That  officer  reorganized  the  army  then  known  as 
the  "  Fourteenth  Army  Corps'"  into  three  distinct  commands, 
—  right.  lc(\,  and  centre,  —  and  assigned  Thomas  to  the  centre, 
which  consisted  of  five  divisions.  He  held  this  command  in 
the  battle  of  Stone  River,  and  until  the  9th  of  January,  1863, 
when,  by  order  of  the  War  Department,  the  three  divisions  of 
the  army  were  made  army  corps.  One  of  these,  the  Fourteenth 
Army  Corps,  Thomas  commanded  during  the  campaigns  of 
Middle  Tennessee  and  Chickamauga.  which  resulted  in  driving 
the  rebels  beyond  the  Tennessee  River,  and  gaining  possession 
o{  Chattanooga,  On  the  19th  of  October,  in  obedience  to  or- 
ders from  the  War  Department,  he  relieved  General  Rosecrans, 
and  assumed  command  of  the  Army  of  the  Cumberland.  Soon 
afterward  two  other  armies,  Sherman's  and  Schofield's.  were 
brought  to  Chattanooga,  the  three  forming  a  grand  army  under 
General  Grant,  for  the  purpose  of  pushing  the  rebels  farther 
south  on  the  great  line  of  the  centre.  The  Army  of  the  Cum- 
berland, consisting  of  four  corps,  formed  the  centre  of  the  grand 
army.  In  this  position  Thomas  commanded  it  at  the  storm- 
ing of  Missionary  Ridge,  and  in  that  series  of  masterly  move- 
ments and  battles  in  Georgia  which  resulted  in  the  capture  of 
Atlanta,  September  i,  1864.  On  the  27th  of  September,  Thomas 
was  ordered  to  Tennessee  to  protect  the  department  against  the 
invasion  of  Hood.    While  in  this  command  he  conducted  the 


1 


GEN,   GEORGE  H.   THOMAS.  66 1 

operations  which  resulted  in  the  combats  along  Duck  River ; 
the  battle  of  Franklin,  November  30 ;  the  destruction  of  Hood's 
army  in  the  battle  of  Nashville,  December  15  and  16,  1864;  and 
finally,  in  the  capture  of  Jefferson  Davis  in  May,  1865.  From 
June,  1865,  to  May,  1869,  he  commanded  most  of  the  territory 
which  had  been  the  theatre  of  his  service  during  the  war;  and 
on  the  15th  of  May,  1869,  he  started  for  San  Francisco,  where 
he  remained  in  command  of  the  Military  Division  of  the  Pacific 
until  the  date  of  his  death,  March  28,  1870.  He  was  appointed 
Major-General  of  Volunteers,  April  25,  1862;  Brigadier-General 
in  the  Regular  Army,  October  27,  1863,  and  Major-General, 
December  15,  1864. 

In  the  presence  of  such  a  career,  let  us  consider  the  qualities 
which  produced  it  and  the  character  which  it  developed. 

We  are  struck,  at  the  outset,  with  the  evenness  and  complete- 
ness of  his  life.  There  were  no  breaks  in  it,  no  chasms,  no  up- 
heavals. His  pathway  was  a  plane  of  continued  elevation.  It 
was  so  at  the  Military  Academy.  Slowly,  but  steadily  and 
thoroughly,  he  worked  up  the  sturdy  materials  of  his  nature 
into  that  strength  and  harmony  which  culture  alone  can  pro- 
duce. At  the  end  of  his  first  year,  on  the  basis  of  general 
merit,  he  ranked  twenty-sixth  in  his  class.  Each  year  witnessed 
an  upward  movement.  At  the  end  of  his  course  he  stood 
twelfth  in  his  class.  He  was  successively  corporal,  sergeant,  and 
lieutenant  of  cadets.  The  rules  of  the  Academy  make  the  slight- 
est irregularity  of  conduct  or  appearance  a  ground  for  demerit ; 
and  many  cadets  were  marked  hundreds  of  demerits  in  the  course 
of  a  year.  Thomas  had  but  twenty  during  his  first  year,  nine- 
teen the  second,  eighteen  the  third,  and  fourteen  the  fourth. 
In  the  army  he  never  leaped  a  grade,  either  in  rank  or  com- 
mand. He  did  not  command  a  company  until  after  long  ser- 
vice as  a  lieutenant.  He  commanded  a  regiment  only  at  the 
end  of  many  years  of  company  and  garrison  duty.  He  did  not 
command  a  brigade  until  after  he  had  commanded  his  regiment 
three  years  on  the  Indian  frontier.  He  did  not  command  a 
division  until  after  he  had  mustered  in,  organized,  disciplined, 
and  commanded  a  brigade.  He  did  not  command  a  corps  until 
he  had  led  his  division  in  battle  and  through  many  hundred 
miles  of  hostile  country.  He  did  not  command  the  army  until, 
in  battle,  at  the  head  of  his  corps,  he  had  saved  the  army  from 
ruin. 


662  GEN.   GEORGE  If.    THOMAS. 

This  regular  and  steady  advancement  was  suited  to  the  char- 
acter of  his  mind  and  the  habits  of  his  life.  When,  in  Septem- 
ber, 1863,  he  was  offered  the  command  of  the  Army  of  the  Ohio, 
he  peremptorily  declined  it,  and  urged  the  retention  of  General 
Buell.  It  would  have  violated  his  law  of  growth  to  leap  from  a 
division  to  the  head  of  an  army,  without  first  having  assured 
himself,  by  actual  trial,  tliat  he  could  handle  a  corps.  The  law 
of  his  life  was  greater  than  his  love  of  fame. 

In  such  a  career,  it  is  by  no  means  the  least  of  a  man's 
achievements  to  take  his  own  measure,  to  discover  and  under- 
stand the  scope  and  range  of  his  own  capacity.  Probably  the 
best  gauge  of  military  ability  is  found  in  the  number  of  troops 
that  a  man  can  handle  wisely  and  well  in  battle.  The  most 
successful  soldier  of  our  war  has  said  that,  when  he  accepted  the 
command  of  his  Illinois  regiment,  he  deeply  distrusted  his  ability 
to  handle  so  large  a  number  of  men.  He  knew  he  could  handlfr 
a  company,  for  he  had  done  that  in  Mexico;  but  how  muchi 
higher  his  range  extended  he  did  not  know.  General  Sherman 
has  expressed  the  opinion  that  no  man  can  effectually  handle 
more  than  seventy  thou.sand  men  in  battle,  in  a  wooded  country 
like  ours.  Thomas  was  right  in  declining  to  command  the 
Army  of  the  Ohio  in  1862.  A  year  later  he  had  tested  himself, 
and  was  ready  to  bear  greater  responsibility. 

His  career  was  not  only  great  and  complete,  but,  what  is  more 
significant,  it  was  in  an  eminent  degree  the  work  of  his  own 
hands.  It  was  not  the  result  of  accident  or  happy  chance.  I 
do  not  deny  that  in  all  human  pursuits,  and  especially  in  war, 
results  are  often  determined  by  what  men  call  fortune,  — "  that 
name  for  the  unknown  combinations  of  infinite  power."  But 
this  is  almost  always  a  modifying  rather  than  an  initial  force. 
Only  a  weak,  a  vain,  or  a  desperate  man  will  rely  upon  it  for 
success.  Thomas's  life  is  a  notable  illustration  of  the  virtue 
and  power  of  hard  work ;  and  in  the  last  analysis  the  power  to 
do  hard  work  is  only  another  name  for  talent.  Professor  Church, 
one  of  his  instructors  at  West  Point,  says  of  his  student  life,  that 
"  he  never  allowed  anything  to  escape  a  thorough  examination, 
and  left  nothing  behind  that  he  did  not  fully  comprehend."  And 
so  it  was  in  the  army.  To  him  a  battle  was  neither  an  earth- 
quake, nor  a  volcano,  nor  a  chaos  of  brave  men  and  frantic 
horses  involved  in  vast  explosions  of  gunpowder.  It  was  rather 
a  calm,  rational  concentradoa  of  force  against  force.     It  was  a 


I 


GEN.   GEORGE  H,   THOMAS.  663 

question  of  lines  and  positions, —  of  weight  of  metal  and  strength 
of  battalions.  He  knew  that  the  elements  and  forces  which 
bring  victory  arc  not  created  on  the  battle-field,  but  must  be 
patiently  elaborated  in  the  quiet  of  the  camp,  by  the  perfect 
organization  and  outfit  of  his  army.  His  remark  to  a  captain 
of  artillery  while  inspecting  a  battery  is  worth  remembering, 
for  it  exhibits  his  theory  of  success ;  **  Keep  everything  in  order, 
for  the  fate  of  a  battle  may  turn  on  a  buckle  or  a  linch-pin." 
He  understood  so  thoroughly  the  condition  of  his  army  and  its 
equipment  that,  when  the  hour  of  trial  came,  he  knew  how  great 
a  pressure  it  could  stand,  and  how  hard  a  blow  it  could  strike. 

His  character  was  as  grand  and  as  simple  as  a  colossal  pillar 
of  chiselled  granite.  Every  step  of  his  career  as  a  soldier  was 
marked  by  the  most  loyal  and  unhesitating  obedience  to  law, — 
to  the  laws  of  his  government  and  to  the  commands  of  his 
superiors.  *  The  obedience  which  he  rendered  to  those  above 
him  he  rigidly  required  of  those  under  his  command.  His  in- 
fluence over  his  troops  grew  steadily  and  constantly.  He  won 
his  ascendency  over  them  neither  by  artifice  nor  by  any  one  act 
of  special  daring,  but  he  gradually  filled  them  with  his  own 
spirit,  until  their  confidence  in  him  knew  no  bounds.  His  power 
as  a  commander  was  developed  slowly  and  silently ;  not  like 
volcanic  land  lifted  from  the  sea  by  sudden  and  violent  up- 
heaval, but  rather  like  a  coral  island,  where  each  increment  is 
a  growth,  —  an  act  of  life  and  work. 

Power  exhibits  itself  under  two  distinct  forms,  — strength  and 
force,  —  each  possessing  peculiar  qualities,  and  each  perfect  in 
its  own  sphere.  Strength  is  typified  by  the  oak,  the  rock,  the 
mountain.  Force  embodies  itself  in  the  cataract,  the  tempest, 
the  thunderbolt.  The  great  tragic  poet  of  Greece,  in  describing 
the  punishment  of  Prometheus  for  rebellion  against  Jupiter, 
represented  Vulcan  descending  from  heaven,  attended  by  two 
mighty  spirits.  Strength  and  Force,  by  whose  aid  he  held  and 
bound  Prometheus  to  the  rock.  In  subduing  our  great  rebel- 
lion, the  republic  called  to  its  aid  men  who  represented  many 
forms  of  great  excellence  and  power.  A  very  few  of  our  com- 
manders possessed  more  force  than  Thomas,  —  more  genius  for 
planning  and  executing  bold  and  daring  enterprises ;  but,  in  my 
judgment,  no  other  was  so  complete  an  embodiment  and  incar- 
nation of  strength,  —  the  strength  that  resists,  maintains,  and 
endures.     His  power  was  not  that  of  the  cataract,  which  leaps 


r  1 

664  GBN.   GEORGE  H.    THOMAS.  ^ 

in  fury  down  the  chasm,  but  rather  that  of  the  river,  broad  and 
deep,  whose  current  is  steady,  silent,  irresistible. 

Tt  was  most  natural  tliat  such  a  man  should  be  placed  in  the 
centre  of  movements.  The  work  to  be  accomplished  on  the 
great  line  of  the  centre  was  admirably  adapted  to  the  military 
character  of  Thomas.  To  advance  steadily  and  to  stay  —  to 
occupy  and  to  hold  —  was  the  business  of  the  Army  of  the 
Cumberland  from  first  to  last.  It  is  a  significant  fact,  that,  from 
the  autumn  of  1S62  till  the  autumn  of  1S64,  —  from  Bowling 
Green  to  Atlanta, — whether  commanding  a  division,  a  corps, 
or  an  army,  his  position  on  the  march  and  his  post  in  battle 
was  the  centre.  And  he  was  placed  there  because  it  was  found 
that,  when  his  command  occupied  the  centre,  that  centre  could 
not  be  broken.  It  never  was  broken.  At  Stone  River  he  was 
the  unmoved  and  immovable  pivot,  around  which  swung  our 
routed  right  wing.  As  the  eye  of  Rosecrans,  our  daring  and 
brilliant  commander,  swept  over  that  bloody  field,  it  always 
rested  on  Thomas,  as  the  centre  of  his  hope.  For  five  days 
Thomas's  command  stood  fighting  in  their  bloody  tracks,  until 
twenty  per  cent  of  their  members  were  killed  or  wounded,  and 
the  enemy  had  retreated.  But  it  was  reserved  for,  the  last  day 
at  Chickamauga  to  exhibit,  in  one  supreme  example,  the  vast 
resources  of  his  prodigious  strength. 

After  a  day  of  heavy  fighting  and  a  night  of  anxious  prepara- 
tion. General  Rosecrans  had  established  his  lines  for  the  purpose 
of  holding  the  road  to  Chattanooga.  This  road  was  to  be  the 
prize  of  that  day's  battle.  If  our  army  failed  to  hold  it,  not 
only  was  our  campaign  a  failure,  but  inevitable  destruction 
awaited  the  army  itself.  Rosecrans  had  crossed  the  Tennessee, 
and  had  successfully  manceuvred  the  enemy  out  of  Chatta- 
nooga. The  greater  work  remained,  to  march  his  own  army 
into  that  place,  in  the  face  of  Bragg's  army,  heavily  reinforced, 
and  greatly  outnumbering  his  own. 

The  Rossville  road  —  the  road  to  Chattanooga  —  was  the 
great  prize  to  be  won  or  lost  at  Chickamauga.  If  the  enemy 
failed  to  gain  it,  their  campaign  would  be  an  unmitigated  dis- 
aster; for  the  gateway  of  the  mountains  would  be  irretrievably 
lost.  If  our  army  failed  to  hold  it,  not  only  would  our  campaign 
be  a  failure,  but  almost  inevitable  destruction  awaited  the  army 
itself.  The  first  day's  battle  (September  19),  which  lasted  far 
into  the  night,  left  us  in  possession  of  the  road ;  but  all  knew 


GEN.   GEORGE  H.    THOMAS.  665 

that  the  next  day  would  bring  the  final  decision.  Late  at  night, 
surrounded  by  his  commanders,  assembled  in  the  rude  cabin 
known  as  the  Widow  Glenn's  House,  Rosecrans  gave  his  orders 
for  the  coming  morning.  The  substance  of  his  order  to  Thomas 
was  this :  "  Your  line  lies  across  the  road  to  Chattanooga.  That 
is  the  pivot  of  the  battle.  Hold  it  at  all  hazards ;  and  I  will 
reinforce  you,  if  necessary,  with  the  whole  army." 

During  the  whole  night,  the  reinforcements  of  the  enemy  were 
coming  in.  Early  next  morning,  we  were  attacked  along  the 
whole  line.  Thomas  commanded  the  left  and  centre  of  our 
army.  From  early  morning,  he  withstood  the  furious  and  re- 
peated attacks  of  the  enemy,  who  constantly  reinforced  his 
assaults  on  our  left.  About  noon,  our  whole  right  wing  was 
broken,  and  driven  in  hopeless  confusion  from  the  field.  Rose- 
crans was  himself  swept  away  in  the  tide  of  retreat.  The  forces 
of  Longstreet,  which  had  broken  our  right,  desisted  from  the 
pursuit,  and,  forming  in  heavy  columns,  assaulted  Thomas's 
right  flank  with  unexampled  fury.  Seeing  the  approaching 
danger,  he  threw  back  his  exposed  flank  toward  the  base  of 
the  mountain  and  met  the  new  peril. 

While  men  shall  read  the  history  of  battles,  they  will  never 
fail  to  study  and  admire  the  work  of  Thomas  during  that  after- 
noon. With  but  twenty-five  thousand  men,  formed  in  a  semi- 
circle of  which  he  himself  was  the  centre  aijd  soul,  he  successfully 
resisted  for  more  than  five  hours  the  repeated  assaults  of  an 
army  of  sixty-five  thousand  men,  flushed  with  victory,  and  bent 
on  his  annihilation.  Toward  the  close  of  the  day,  his  ammuni- 
tion began  to  fail.  One  by  one  his  division  commanders  re- 
ported but  ten  rounds^  five  rounds,  or  two  rounds  left.  The 
calm,  quiet  answer  was  returned :  "  Save  your  fire  for  close 
quarters,  and  when  your  last  shot  is  fired,  give  them  the 
bayonet."  On  a  portion  of  his  line,  the  last  assault  was  repelled 
by  the  bayonet,  and  several  hundred  rebels  were  captured. 
When  night  had  closed  over  the  combatants,  the  last  sound  of 
battle  was  the  booming  of  Thomas's  shells  bursting  among  his 
baffled  and  retreating  assailants.  He  was,  indeed,  the  "  Rock 
of  Chickamauga,"  against  which  the  wild  waves  of  battle  dashed 
in  vain.  It  will  stand  written  forever  in  the  annals  of  his  coun- 
try, that  there  he  saved  from  destruction  the  Army  of  the  Cum- 
berland. He  held  the  road  to  Chattanooga.  The  campaign 
was  successful.     The  gate  of  the  mountains  was  ours. 


1 


666  GEN.    GEORGE  H.   THOMAS. 

Time  would  fail  mc  to  notice  other  illustrations  of  his  quali- 
ties, as  exhibited  at  the  storming  of  Missionary  Ridge,  and 
during  the  "  hundred  days  under  fire  "  in  the  great  march  from 
Chattanooga  to  Atlanta.  Later  in  the  war,  tlicre  awaited  him 
a  test  in  some  respects  more  searching  than  any  that  had  yet 
tried  him. 

On  the  27th  of  September,  1864,  he  was  ordered  by  General 
Sherman  to  return  with  a  portion  of  his  army  into  Tennessee, 
and  defend  the  department  against  Hood's  invasion.  By  the 
end  of  October,  Sherman  had  determined  to  cut  loose  from  his 
base  and  march  to  the  sea.  For  this  service  he  selected  the 
flower  of  his  grand  army,  including  two  of  the  best  corps  of 
Thomas's  army.  By  the  glh  of  November,  Hood  was  encamped 
on  the  banks  of  the  Tennessee  with  forty  thousand  infantry  and 
not  less  than  twelve  thousand  of  the  best  cavalry  in  the  rebel 
service.  Thus  Thomas  was  confronted  by  that  veteran  army 
which  had  so  ably  resisted  Sherman's  army  on  its  march  to 
Atlanta.  At  the  same  date,  Thomas  had  an  effective  force  of 
but  twenty-three  thousand  infantry  and  seven  thousand  cavalry. 
Convalescents  and  dismounted  cavalry  were  coming  back  to 
him  from  Atlanta;  raw  recruits  were  arriving  from  the  North, 
and  two  divisions  were  en  route  from  Missouri.  The  problem 
before  him  was  how  to  delay  the  advance  of  the  enemy  until  he 
could  organize  a  forca  strong  enough  to  win  a  battle. 

The  history  of  this  campaign  is  too  well  known  to  need  repeti- 
tion here.  I  allude  to  it  only  to  exhibit  his  characteristics  as  a 
soldier.  After  the  skilful  resistance  at  Duck  River  and  Spring 
Hill,  and  the  remarkably  brilliant  and  bloody  battle  at  Franklin, 
he  found  Hood's  army  in  front  of  Nashville  on  the  Ist  of  Decem- 
ber. With  his  accustomed  care,  he  had  measured  the  force  of 
the  opposing  armies  and  determined  that  by  one  plan  only  could 
he  achieve  certain  success.  That  plan  required  him  to  delay 
the  battle  until  he  could  get  his  new  and  improvised  army  fully 
in  hand,  and  could  organize  a  cavalry  force  to  secure  the  fruits 
of  victory.  The  authorities  at  Washington,  fearing  the  break- 
ing up  of  our  communications  with  Chattanooga,  and  perhaps 
another  invasion  of  Kentucky,  were  dissatisfied  with  his  delay, 
and  urged  him  to  give  battle  immediately.  He  knew,  better 
than  any  other  could  know,  the  law  of  his  own  mind,  and  the 
methods  by  which  he  had  a  right  to  expect  success.  The  gth 
of  December  came,  and  with  it  the  intelligence  that  an  order 


GEN.   GEORGE  H.   THOMAS.  667 

was  prepared  to  suspend  him  from  command  and  to  require 
another  to  make  the  attack.  It  may  well  be  questioned  whether 
his  response  to  this  intelligence  will  not  confer  more  glory  on 
his  name  than  the  winning  of  a  battle.  In  his  despatch  of 
December  9th  to  General  Halleck,  he  said :  — 

"  Your  despatch  of  10.30  a.  m.  this  date  is  received.  I  regret  that 
General  Grant  should  feel  dissatisfection  at  my  delay  in  attacking  the 
enemy.  I  feel  conscious  that  I  have  done  everything  in  my  power  to 
prepare,  and  that  the  troops  could  not  have  been  got  ready  before  this ; 
and  if  he  should  order  me  to  be  relieved  I  will  submit  without  a  murmur. 
A  terrible  storm  of  freezing  rain  has  come  on  since  daylight,  which  will 
render  an  attack  impossible  until  it  breaks." 

On  receiving  this  despatch,  General  Grant  answered  him  that 
he  had  telegraphed  to  suspend  the  order  relieving  him,  and  in 
conclusion  said,  "  I  hope  most  sincerely  that  the  facts  will  show 
that  you  have  been  right  all  the  time." 

On  the  nth,  however,  he  received  from  General  Grant  a 
peremptory  order  to  "  delay  no  longer  for  weather  or  reinforce- 
ments." Still  the  storm  raged,  and  Nashville  was  locked  in  ice. 
On  the  1 2th,  he  attempted  to  form  his  lines  for  battle;  but  the 
ground  was  so  thickly  incrusted  with  ice,  that  his  troops  could 
neither  ascend  the  slopes  nor  move  in  good  order  on  level 
ground.  That  night,  he  stated  the  situation  to  General  Halleck, 
in  a  telegram  which  concluded  with  these  words :  "  Under  these 
circumstances,  I  believe  that  an  attack  at  this  time  would  only 
result  in  a  useless  sacrifice  of  life."  .Not  until  the  morning  of 
the  isth  did  he  deem  it  possible  to  win  a  battle.  That  morning 
the  Lieutenant-General  had  started  from  City  Point,  Virginia, 
on  his  way  to  Nashville  to  assume  the  command  himself;  but 
at  Washington,  the  news  reached  him  of  the  first  day's  fight. 
On  the  evening  of  the  1 6th,  Thomas  had  substantially  destroyed 
the  army  of  Hood. 

In  reviewing  these  transactions  there  would  be  no  justice  in 
crimination  or  recrimination, —  in  blaming  the  living  in  order  to 
praise  the  dead.  It  was  the  spectacle  of  two  able  commanders, 
each  true  to  himself,  each  honoring  the  other  while  following 
his  highest  convictions  of  duty; — the  one  impelled  by  the 
wishes  of  his  superiors,  the  President  and  Secretary  of  War, 
and  by  his  own  judgment  of  the  situation,  to  deliver  immediate 
battle;  the  other  preferring  to  lose  his  command  rather  than 


668  GEN.    GEORGE   H.    THOMAS. 

to  sacrifice  his  army, — to  be  right  rather  than  seem  so.  Of 
Thomas's  conduct  on  this  trying  occasion,  our  comrade  Gen- 
era! Cox,  who  bore  so  noble  a  part  in  the  Nashville  campaign, 
has  well  said:  "He  waited  with  immovable  firmness  for  the 
right  hour  to  come.  It  came,  and  with  it  a  justification  of 
both  his  military  skill  and  his  own  self- forgetful  patriotism,  so 
complete  and  glorious  that  it  would  be  a  mere  waste  of  words 
to  talk  about  it."  General  Grant  himself  has  officially  put  it  on 
record,  that  the  defeat  of  Hood  was  the  vindication  of  Thomas's 
judgment. 

Nashville  was  the  only  battle  of  our  war  which  annihilated 
an  army.  Hood  crossed  the  Tennessee  late  in  November,  and 
moved  northward  with  an  army  of  fifty-seven  thousand  veterans. 
Before  the  end  of  December  twenty- five  thousand  of  that  num- 
ber were  killed,  wounded,  or  captured;  thousands  more  had 
deserted,  and  the  rabble  that  followed  him  back  to  the  South 
was  no  longer  an  army. 

In  summing  up  the  qualities  of  General  Thomas,  it  is  difficult 
to  find  his  exact  parallel  in  history.  His  character  as  a  man 
and  a  .soldier  was  unique.  In  some  respects  he  resembled  Zach- 
ary  Taylor ;  and  many  of  his  solid  qualities  as  a  soldier  were 
developed  by  his  long  service  under  that  honest  and  sturdy 
commander.  In  patient  attention  to  all  the  details  of  duty,  in 
the  thoroughness  of  organization,  equipment,  and  discipline  of 
his  troops,  and  in  the  powerful  grasp  by  which  he  held  and 
wielded  his  army,  he  was  not  unlike,  and  fully  equalled  Welling- 
ton. The  language  applied  to  the  Iron  Duke  by  the  historian 
of  the  Peninsular  War  might  almost  be  mistaken  for  a  descrip- 
tion of  Thomas,  "  He  held  his  army  in  hand,"  says  Napier, 
"  keeping  it,  with  unmitigated  labor,  always  in  a  fit  state  to 
march  or  to  fight Sometimes  he  was  indebted  to  for- 
tune, sometimes  to  his  natural  genius,  always  to  his  untiring 
industry;  for  he  was  emphatically  a  painstaking  man."  The 
language  of  Lord  Brougham  addressed  to  Wellington  is  a  fitting 
description  of  Thomas :  "  Mighty  captain !  who  never  advanced 
except  to  cover  his  arms  with  glory.  Mightier  captain  I  who 
never  retreated  except  to  eclipse  the  glory  of  his  advance." 

If  I  remember  correctly,  no  enemy  was  ever  able  to  fight 
Thomas  out  of  any  position  that  he  undertook  to  hold. 

On  the  whole,  I  cannot  doubt  that  the  most  fitting  parallel 
to  General  Thomas  is  found  in  our  greatest  American,  the 


I 


GEN.   GEORGE  If.   THOMAS.  669 

man  who  was  **  first  in  war,  first  in  peace,  and  first  in  the  hearts 
of  his  countrymen."  The  personal  resemblance  of  General 
Thomas  to  Washington  was  often  the  subject  of  remark.  Even 
at  West  Point,  Rosecrans  was  accustomed  to  call  him  General 
Washington.  He  resembled  Washington  in  the  gravity  and 
dignity  of  his  character,  in  the  solidity  of  his  judgment,  in 
the  careful  accuracy  of  all  his  transactions,  in  his  incorruptible 
integrity,  and  in  his  extreme,  but  unaffected  modesty. 

Though  his  death  was  most  sudden  and  unexpected,  all  his 
official  papers,  and  his  accounts  with  the  government,  were  in 
perfect  order,  and  ready  for  instant  settlement.  His  reports  and 
official  correspondence  are  models  of  pure  style,  and  full  of 
valuable  details.  Even  during  the  exciting  and  rapid  campaign 
from  Chattanooga  to  Atlanta,  he  recorded,  each  month,  the 
number  of  rounds  his  men  had  fired,  and  other  similar  facts  con- 
cerning the  equipment  and  condition  of  his  army.  He  has  left 
behind  him  a  great  mass  of  most  valuable  papers,  classified  and 
arranged  in  perfect  order,  the  publication  of  which  will  make 
an  almost  complete  history  of  the  Army  of  the  Cumberland. 

His  modesty  was  as  real  as  his  courage.  When  he  was  in 
Washington  in  1866,  his  friends  with  great  difficulty  persuaded 
him  to  allow  himself  to  be  introduced  to  the  House  of  Repre- 
sentatives. He  was  escorted  to  the  Speaker's  stand,  while  the 
great  assembly  of  representatives  and  citizens  arose  and  greeted 
him  with  the  most  enthusiastic  marks  of  affection  and  reverence. 
Mr.  Speaker  Colfax,  in  speaking  of  it  afterward,  said :  **  I  no- 
ticed, as  he  stood  beside  me,  that  his  hand  trembled  like  an 
aspen  leaf  He  could  bear  the  shock  of  battle,  but  he  shrank 
before  the  storm  of  applause." 

He  was  not  insensible  to  praise ;  and  he  was  quick  to  feel 
any  wrong  or  injustice.  While  grateful  to  his  country  for  the 
honor  it  conferred  upon  him,  and  while  cherishing  all  expres- 
sions of  affection  on  the  part  of  his  friends,  he  would  not  accept 
the  smallest  token  of  regard  in  the  form  of  a  gift  So  frank 
and  guileless  was  his  life,  so  free  from  anything  that  approached 
intrigue,  that  when,  after  his  death,  his  private  letters  and 
papers  were  examined,  there  was  not  a  scrap  among  them  that 
his  most  confidential  friends  thought  best  to  destroy.  When 
Phidias  was  asked,  why  he  took  so  much  pains  to  finish  up  the 
parts  of  his  statue  that  would  not  be  in  sight,  he  said,  "  These 
I  am  finishing  for  the  gods  to  look  at."     In  the  life  and  charac- 


1 


^  €f6  GEN.    GEORGE  H.    THOMAS. 

tcr  of   General  Thomas  there  were  no  secret  places  of  which 
his  friends  will  ever  be  ashamed. 

But  his  career  is  ended.  Struck  dead  at  his  post  of  duty,  a 
bereaved  nation  bore  his  honored  dust  across  the  continent,  and 
laid  it  to  rest  on  the  banks  of  the  Hudson,  aniidst  the  tears  and 
grief  of  millions.  The  nation  stood  at  his  grave  as  a  mourner. 
No  one  knew  until  he  was  dead  how  strong  was  his  hold  on  the 
hearts  of  the  American  people.  Every  citizen  felt  that  a  pillar 
of  state  had  fallen, —  tliat  a  great  and  true  and  pure  man  had  ' 
passed  from  cdrth. 

There  are  no  fitting  words  in  which  1  may  speak  of  the  loss  ' 
which  every  member  of  this  Society  has  sustained  in  his  death. 
The  General  of  the  Army  has  beautifully  said,  in  his  order  an- 
nouncing the  death  of  Thomas:  "  Though  he  leaves  no  child  to 
bear  his  name,  the  old  Army  of  the  Cumberland,  numbered  by 
tens  of  thousands,  called  him  Father,  and  will  weep  for  him  in 
tears  of  manly  grief," 

To  us,  his  comrades,  he  has  left  the  rich  legacy  of  his  friend- 
ship. To  his  country  and  to  nnankind,  he  has  left  his  character 
and  his  fame  as  a  priceless  and  everlasting  possession. 


O  (atlen  at  length  that  lower  of  strength 

Which  stood  four-square  to  all  the  winds  that  blew  I 

"  His  work  is  done. 
But  while  tht  races  of  mankind  endure. 
Let  his  great  example  stand 
Colossal,  seen  of  every  land. 
And  keep  the  soldier  (irm,  the  statesman  pure  t 
Till  in  all  lands  and  through  all  human  story 
The  path  of  Duty  be  the  way  to  Glory." 


The  edition  of  this  Oration  published  by  the  author  contains  Appen- 
dices from  A  to  I  inclusive,  making  fourteen  pages.  Only  those  relating 
to  General  R.  E.  Lee  need  appear  here. 

I. 

November  19,  1870. 
Dear  General,  —  I   give  you  the  following  from  memory,  having 
never  made  any  written  note  of  it  before. 

It  must  have  been  about,  if  not  upon,  the  19th  of  April,  1861,  that 
Colonel  R.  E.  L£e,  First  U.  S.  Cavalry,  then  staying  at  Ariingjton,  came 


GEN.  GEORGE  ff.   THOMAS,  671 

to  General  Scott's  office,  opposite  the  War  Department,  in  Washington, 
in  obedience  to  a  message  from  the  General  that  he  desired  to  see  him. 
I  was  the  only  person  present  during  the  interview.  General  Scott  spoke 
for  about  fifteen  minutes,  the  substance  of  his  remarks  being  that  it  was 
time  Lee  should  clearly  define  his  position  upon  the  question  which  was 
causing  many  Southern  officers  to  resign  from  the  United  States  Army ; 
that  he  had  probably  already  made  up  his  mind,  but  that  he  should  weigh 
well  the  consequence ;  that  the  cause  of  the  Southern  people  against  the 
North  could  not  possibly  terminate  in  favor  of  the  former,  and  should  it 
fail,  the  result  must  be  disastrous  to  those  officers  who  left  the  army  to 
join  the  South. 

Lee  listened  in  silence,  and  at  last  replied  briefly :  "  General,  I  must 
go  with  my  native  State  in  what  she  decides  to  be  best.  My  children  all 
own  property  in  Virginia ;  all  that  we  have  is  there.  I  cannot  raise  my 
hand  against  my  children." 

The  interview  then  terminated,  and  Lee  sent  in  his  resignation  the  next 
day,  April  20,  1861. 

Yours  truly, 

E.   D.  TOWNSEND. 


GENERAL  Garfield,  M.  C. 


n. 


Washington,  D.  C,  November  21,  1870. 

Dear  General,  —  I  send  you  the  following  information,  drawn  from 
the  records  in  the  Adjutant-General's  office. 

R.  E.  Lee  recorded  his  name  in  the  Adjutant-General's  office,  March 
5,  1 86 1,  as  Brevet  Colonel  and  Lieutenant-Colonel  Second  Cavalry. 
Address,  Arlington ;  with  the  remark,  "  Under  orders  from  Department  of 
Texas." 

R.  E.  Lee  was  confirmed  by  the  Senate  as  Colonel  First  Cavalry, 
March  23,  1861.  Date  of  commission,  March  25,  1861,  to  rank  from 
March  io,  1861.  Commission  forwarded  to  him  at  Arlington,  Va.,  March 
28,  1 86 1,  and  its  receipt  acknowledged  and  accepted  by  him  March  30, 
1 86 1.  April  20,  1 86 1,  by  letter  from  Arlington,  R.  E.  Lee  tenders  his 
resignation  as  Colonel  First  Cavalry.  Received  by  General  Scott  the 
same  day,  and  sent  to  the  Adjutant-General.  Submitted  to  General 
Cameron,  Secretary  of  War,  April  24,  1861,  and  accepted  by  him  the 
next  day,  April  27,  1861.  He  was  informed  at  Richmond  of  the  ac- 
ceptance, by  the  President,  of  his  resignation,  to  take  effect  April  25, 
1861. 

In  the  letter  of  tender  of  resignation,  no  reason  given. 

Fitzhugh  Lee  records  his  name  at  the  Adjutant-General's  office  as 
Second  Lieutenant  First  Cavalry,  May  i,  1861,  with  the  remark,  "  On 


1 


67a  GEN.    GEORGE  H.    THOMAS. 

seven  days'  leave  from  West  Point,"  at  Washington.  May  16,  1861, 
tenders  his  resignation.  Address,  Richmond.  Resignation  submitted 
to  General  Cameron,  Secretary  of  War,  May  ai,  1861,  and  accepted  by 

I  have  the  honor  to  be,  General,  very  respeclfiilly,  your  obedient  servant, 

L.  Thomas. 

Brigadier- General  (/■  S.  Army. 

Geneeal  J.  A.  Garfield,  IVaikiHgitm,  D.  C. 


III. 

ABM-fOTON,  Va,  April  io,  t86i. 

Generai.,  —  Since  my  interview  with  you,  on  the  i8th  instant,  I  have   ' 
felt  that  I  ought  not  longer  lo  retain  my  commission  in  the  army, 
therefore  lender  my  resignation,  wliich  I  request  you  will  recommend  for 
acceptance.     It  would  have  been  presented  at  once  but  for  the  struggle 
it  has  cost  me  to  separate  myself  from  the  service  to  which  I  have  de- 
voted all  the  best  yeais  of  my  life  and  all  tlie  ability  I  possessed. 

During  the  whole  of  that  time;  —  more  than  a  quarter  of  a  century,  — 
I  have  expericnceil  nolhint;  but  kindness  from  my  superiors,  3n<l  the 
most  cordial  friendship  from  my  comrades.  To  no  one.  General,  have 
I  been  so  much  indebted  as  to  yourself  for  uniform  kindness  and  con- 
sideration, and  it  has  always  been  my  ardent  desire  to  merit  your  ap- 
probation. I  shall  carry  to  the  grave  the  most  grateful  recollecrions  of 
your  kind  consideration,  and  your  name  and  fame  will  always  be  dear 
to  me. 

Save  in  defence  of  my  State,  I  never  desire  to  draw  my  sword.  Be 
pleased  to  accept  my  most  earnest  wishes  for  the  continuance  of  your 
happiness  and  prosperity,  and  believe  me  most  truly  yours, 

R.  E.  Lee. 
Lieutenant-Grnekal  Winfield  Scott, 
Cemmanding  United  Slalet  Army. 


IV. 

HEADQtIARTERS,    RTCHMOHD,   April    33,   18GI. 

General  Orders,  No.  I. 

In  obedience  to  orders  from  His  Excellency.  John  Letcher,  Governor 
of  the  State,  Major-General  Robert  E.  Lee  assumes  command  of  the 
military  and  naval  forces  of  Virginia. 

[Signed,]  R.  E.  Lee, 

Major-  General. 


GEN.  GEORGE  H.   THOMAS.  673 

V. 

Arlington,  Va.,  April  20, 1861. 

My  dear  Sister,  —  I  am  grieved  at  my  inability  to  see  you.  I  have 
been  waiting  for  a  ''more  convenient  season,"  which  has  brought  to 
many  before  me  deep  and  lasting  regret.  Now  we  are  in  a  state  of  war, 
which  will  yield  to  nothing.  The  whole  SouUi  is  in  a  state  of  revolution, 
into  which  Virginia,  after  a  long  struggle,  has  been  drawn ;  and  though  I 
recognize  no  necessity  for  this  state  of  things,  and  would  have  forborne 
and  pleaded  to  the  end  for  redress  of  grievances,  real  or  supposed,  yet 
in  my  own  person  I  had  to  meet  the  question  whether  I  would  take 
part  against  my  native  State.  With  all  my  devotion  to  the  Union,  and 
the  feeling  of  loyalty  and  duty  of  an  American  citizen,  I  have  not  been 
able  to  make  up  my  mind  to  raise  my  hand  against  my  relatives,  my 
children,  my  home.  I  have  therefore  resigned  my  commission  in  the 
army,  and,  save  in  defence  of  my  native  State^  with  the  hope  that  my 
poor  services  will  never  be  needed,  I  hope  I  may  never  be  called  on 
to  draw  my  sword. 

I  know  you  will  blame  me ;  but  you  must  think  as  kindly  of  me  as 
you  can,  and  believe  that  I  have  endeavored  to  do  what  I  thought  right. 
To  show  you  the  feeling  and  struggle  it  cost  me,  I  send  a  copy  of  my 
letter  to  General  Scott,  which  accompanied  my  letter  of  resignation. 
I  have  no  time  for  more. 

R.  E.  Lee. 


voi«  I.  43 


THE    RIGHT   TO  ORIGINATE    REVENUE 
BILLS. 


SPEECH   DKLIVERKD   IN   THE    HOUSE   OF   REPKESENTATIVES, 


At  the  third  session  of  the  Forty-first  Congress,  there  arose  a  coa- 
Slitiitional  question  aflecting  the  riglils  of  the  two  houses,  January  26, 
1871,  the  Senate  passed  a  bill  abolishing  the  income  tax  (the  limit  of 
which  had  been  December  31,  1869,  but  which  had  been  extended  by 
the  act  of  July  14,  1870J.  The  House  immediately  returned  the  bill, 
accompanied  by  this  resolution  :  "  Resolved,  That  Senate  Bill  No.  1083, 
to  repeal  so  much  of  the  act  approved  July  14,  1870,  entitled  '  An  Act  to 
reduce  Internal  Taxes,  and  for  other  Purposes,'  as  continues  the  income  , 
tax  after  the  31st  day  of  December,  1869,  be  returned  to  thai  body,  with 
the  respectful  suggestion  on  the  part  of  the  House  that  section  seven  of 
article  one  of  the  Constitution  vests  in  the  House  of  Representatives  the 
sole  power  to  originate  such  measures."  The  Senate  asked  coirference 
upon  the  point  of  difference,  which  was  that  of  the  respective  rights  of 
the  houses  concerning  revenue  bills,  and  this  the  House  of  Representa- 
tives granted. 

The  Senate  and  House  committees  could  not  agree,  and  each  made 
a  report  sustaining  the  right  and  position  of  the  body  that  had  ap- 
pointed it.  The  report  of  the  House  conferees  closed  with  this  resolu- 
tion :  "  Resolved,  That  the  House  maintains  that  it  is  its  sole  and  exclu- 
sive privilege  to  originate  all  bilb  directly  affecting  the  revenue,  whether 
such  bills  be  for  the  imposition,  reduction,  or  repeal  of  taxes ;  and  in 
the  exercise  of  this  privilege  in  the  first  instance  to  limit  and  appoint 
the  ends,  purposes,  considerations,  and  limitations  of  such  bills,  whether 
relating  to  the  matter,  manner,  measure,  or  time  of  their  introduction, 
subject  to  the  right  of  the  Senate  to  propose  or  concur  with  amendments, 
as  in  oilier  bills."  The  House  agreed  to  the  report  of  its  committee. 
Pending  this  report,  at  the  very  end  of  the  session,  Mr.  Garfield  obtained 
leave  to  print  the  speech  which  time  and  the  business  before  the  House 
did  not  enable  him  to  deliver. 


RIGHT  TO  ORIGINATE  REVENUE  BILLS.       675 


^  Whenever  the  Lords  usurp  upon  the  known  privil^es  of  the  Commons,  or  they  upon 
the  Lords,  or  both  upon  the  King,  or  lastly  the  King  upon  them,  we  may  cry  good  night 
to  this  our  ancient  Constitution  under  which  we  have  flourished  so  many  ages."  —  Preface 
to  Lard  Anglesey s  *'  PriviUges  of  the  Lards  and  Commons^*  A.  D.  1702. 

MR.  SPEAKER,  —  Few  questions  have  arisen  in  this  House 
of  greater  importance  than  the  one  now  pending ;  and 
I  greatly  regret  that  it  did  not  arise  at  a  time  when  it  might  re- 
ceive a  more  thoughtful  consideration  than  is  possible  at  this 
period  of  the  session.  I  greatly  regret,  also,  that  this  difference 
between  the  two  houses  should  have  arisen  on  the  bill  to 
abolish  what  remains  of  the  income  tax ;  for  I  have  no  doubt 
that  the  best  interests  of  the  people  and  of  the  government 
require  the  repeal  of  that  tax.  But  infringements  of  the  con- 
stitutional rights  and  privileges  of  the  House  of  Representatives 
are  more  likely  to  occur  in  cases  where  the  public  wishes  can 
be  used  to  force  a  surrender ;  and  hence  the  necessity  of  repeal- 
ing the  tax  should  not  be  considered  in  connection  with  the 
subject  now  before  the  House. 

The  question  at  issue  involves  the  history,  the  object,  and  the 
significance  of  this  clause  of  the  Constitution :  "  All  bills  for 
raising  revenue  shall  originate  in  the  House  of  Representatives ; 
but  the  Senate  may  propose  or  concur  with  amendments,  as 
on  other  bills."  ^  It  would  be  difficult  to  find  any  clause  in  the 
Constitution  so  rich  in  its  historical  associations,  and  of  such 
vital  importance  to  the  genius  and  spirit  of  our  government. 
The  Senate  has  forced  upon  the  House  the  necessity  of  pro- 
nouncing its  judgment  on  this  question,  and  of  asserting,  in 
clear  and  unmistakable  language,  a  right  conferred  upon  the 
House  by  the  Constitution,  —  a  right  which  cannot  be  surren- 
dered without  inflicting  a  fatal  wound  upon  the  integrity  of  our 
whole  system  of  government.  The  Senate  has  passed  a  bill  re- 
pealing a  portion  of  a  general  law  for  raising  public  revenue, 
and  insists  on  its  right  to  do  so,  for  the  reason  that  its  bill  pro- 
vides for  reducing,  not  for  increasing  revenue. 

To  reach  an  intelligent  understanding  of  this  clause,  we  must 
go  back  to  the  fountain-head  from  which  the  provision  was 
drawn.  I  therefore  invite  the  attention  of  the  House  to  the 
source  from  which  this  feature  of  our  Constitution  was  derived, 
the  constitution  of  Great  Britain. 

It  appears   that  from  the   earliest  times  until  the  reign  of 

1  Art.  I.  Sec.  7,  clause  i. 


■'TP^ 


6t6     MUGHT  to  QRIGIIUTM  RSWMmrB  mxjuk 

Edward  III.  the  Commons  alone  levied  taxes  on  their  own  cla9% 
and  the  Lords  alone  levied  taxes  on  the  peers  of  the  ^f«i4in9 
But  9ome  time  in  the  btter  half  of  the  fi^urteeath  c^otiiiy,  taioel 
began  to  be  levied  upon  bo  A  peers  and  commcMieim  >%^  liMr 
which  originated  solely  in  the  House  of  CcMBatinoi^ajqdi:tfi^«f^^ 
the  House  of  Lords  had  only  tiie  power  bo  five  or  rdbse)p|Eh 
sent  In  an  exhaustive  and  elaborate  review  of  this  si|bj<;»rt« 
HallaoGi  says,  in  his  ''  Constittttional  i£btoiy  of  Eogl^c}.'^^        .y. 

^  In  oor  eailiest  PttHamentay  leocHtdii^ 
moned  in  agreat  mttoore  ix  the  sske  of  relieriiig^tlie  Ktog%  lieueiuiiaMj 
q)pear  to  have  made  their  seicnd  g^uitB  of  supply  witiboi^ 
nication,  and  die  hder  g^meraBjr  m  a  htghef  propartjon-dwi  tfielbnM& 
These  itere  not  in  the  fbim  of  laws,  nor  iiA  thef  obtain  mj  teiMl 
asMnt  from  die  Kii^  to  whom  thqr  were  lendered  in  wiitlai  iaJcpiwwB^ 
entered  afterward  on  the  roll  of  Bariiament  The  latest  iastattoe^rf' such 
distinct  grants  from  the  two  Houses,  as  &r  as  I  can  judge  fixm  tfie  ioO% 
is  in  die  e^^iteentfa  year  of  Edward  iU."*   [A.  IX  1345-]^ 

He  says  further,  speaking  of  tl»  Commons:  -^ 

''They  maintained  also  diat  the  Lords  cotdd  not  malke  any  amend* 

ment  whatever  in  bills  sent  up  to  them  for  imposing,  directly  or  indi- 
rectly, a  charge  upon  the  people.  There  seems  no  proof  that  any 
difference  between  the  two  houses  on  this  score  had  arisen  before  the 
Restoration."  * 

Sir  Thomas  Erskine  May  discusses  at  length  the  precedents 
in  regard  to  originating  money  bills,  and  shows  that  the  ten- 
dency has  been  constantly  to  enlarge  the  jurisdiction  of  the 
Commons,  and  to  restrict  that  of  the  Lords.     He  says :  — 

"The  Lords  were  not  originally  precluded  from  amending  bills  of 
supply ;  for  there  are  numerous  cases  in  the  Journals  in  which  Lords' 
amendments  to  such  bills  were  agreed  to;  but  in  167 1  the  Commons 
advanced  their  claim  somewhat  further  by  resolving,  nem,  con.,  '  that  in 
all  aids  given  to  the  King  by  the  Commons  the  rate  of  tax  ought  not 
to  be  altered  [by  the  Lords].*  "^ 

This  resolution  was  passed  in  consequence  of  an  amendment 
of  the  House  of  Lords  reducing  the  duties  on  sugar.  On  the 
3d  of  July,  1678,  the  Commons  resolved:  "That  all  aids  and 
supplies,  and  aids  to  his  Majesty  in  Parliament,  are  the  sole  gift 
of  the  Commons ;  and  all  bills  for  the  granting  of  any  such  aids 

1  Chap.  13,  p.  508  (Harpers'  cd.,  i860).  *  Ibid.,  p.  509. 

*  Parliamentary  Practice,  (London,  1868,)  p.  537. 


RIGHT  TO  ORIGINATE  REVENUE  BILLS.      677 

iuppiies  ought  to  begin  with  the  Commons ;  and  that  it  is 
the  undoubted  and  sole  right  of  the  Commons  to  direct,  limit, 
aad  iq>point  in  such  bills  the  ends,  purposes,  considerations, 
condittons,  limitations,  and  qualifications  of  such  grants,  which 
ought  not  to  be  changed  or  altered  by  the  House  of  Lords." 
SL  'Thomas  Erskine  May  makes  this  comment:  — 

•*  It' '%  vaftm  this  latter  resolution  that  all  proceedings  between  the  two 
Houfc  in  matters  of  supply  are  now  founded.  The  principle  is  acqui- 
fet  bf  the  Lords,  and,  except  in  cases  where  it  is  difficult  to  de- 
whether  a  matter  be  strictly  one  of  supply  or  not,  no  serious 
can  arise In  bills  not  confined  to  matters  of  aid  or  tax- 
ation, but  in  which  pecuniary  burdens  are  imposed  upon  the  people,  the 
Ixxdr  maf  make  any  amendments,  provided  they  do  not  alter  the  inten- 
tion of  the-  Commons  with  regard  to  the  amount  of  the  rate  or  charge, 
whether  by  increase  or  reduction."  ^ 

He  also  says :  — 

"  Thj  principle  of  excluding  the  Lords  from  interference  has  even  been 
pressed  so  far  by  the  Commons,  that,  when  the  Lords  have  sent  messages 
for  reports  and  papers  relative  to  taxation,  the  Commons  have  evaded 
sending  them ;  and  it  has  been  doubted  whether  members  should  be  al- 
lowed to  be  examined  before  a  committee  of  the  House  of  Lords  upon 
matters  involving  taxation,  although  in  practice  they  have  been  allowed 
to  attend."  « 

Within  the  present  century,  the  Commons  have  relaxed  the 
rigidity  of  these  rules  in  the  case  of  certain  private  bills,  and 
other  bills  where  the^  revenue  feature  is  only  incidental  to  the 
main  object.  Under  this  relaxation  the  Commons  declare  that 
they  will  accept  "any  clauses  sent  down  from  the  House  of 
Lords  which  refer  to  tolls  and  charges  for  services  performed, 
and  which  are  not  in  the  nature  of  a  tax." 

The  present  practice,  as  settled  in  1678,  is  thus  compendi- 
ously stated  by  Leone  Levi,  the  distinguished  financial  writer, 
who,  after  reciting  the  resolution  of  1678,  says:  — 

"  These  and  other  precedents  in  Parliamentary  practice  of  a  like  char- 
acter establish  the  following  facts :  first,  that  all  bills  for  purposes  of  tax- 
ation, or  containing  clauses  imposing  a  tax,  must  originate  in  the  House 
of  Commons,  and  not  in  the  House  of  Lords ;  second,  that  bills  so  origi- 
nated in  the  Commons  cannot  be  altered  and  amended  by  the  Lords ; 
and  third,  that,  although  bills  for  imposing  or  repealing  taxes  must  not 
originate  or  be  amended  by  the  Lords,  they  have  the  power  to  reject 

*  Parliamentary  Practice,  pp.  537,  538.  •  Ibid.,  p.  543. 


O78      RIGHT  TO  ORIGINATE  REVENUE  BILLS. 

the  measure  altogether,  though  this  power  has  seldom,  If  ever,  been  {iillf 
exercised." ' 

It  must  be  remembered  that  the  Constitution  of  the  United 
States  was  framed  at  a  time  when  the  only  point  in  contest  be- 
tween the  two  Houses  of  Parliament  was  whetJicr  the  Lords 
could  make  any  amendment  whatever  to  a  money  bill,  and  that 
in  our  Constitution  the  same  point  was  settled  in  favor  o(  the 
Senate.  The  history  of  this  clause  of  our  Constitution  ii^both 
curious  and  instructive;  and  in  the  belief  that  it  is  not  generally 
understood,  I  will  review  it  somewhat  in  detail,  as  it  appears 
in  the  Madison  Papers  and  other  records  of  the  Convention 
of  1787. 

When  the  Constitutional  Convention  had  been  in  session  one 
month,  during  the  course  of  the  debate  upon  those  sections 
of  the  instrument  which  fix  the  character  of  the  two  houses  of 
Congress,  Mr,  Gerry,  of  Massachusetts,  moved  "  to  restrain  the 
Senatorial  power  from  originating  money  bills.  The  other 
branch,"  he  said,  "were  more  immediately  the  representatives 
ol  the  people,  and  it  was  a  maxim  that  the  people  ought  to  hold 
the  puriie-slrings.  If  the  Senate  should  be  allowed  to  orii^inate 
such  bills,  they  would  repeat  the  experiment  till  chance  should 
furnish  a  set  of  representatives  in  the  other  branch  who  will  fall 
into  their  snares."  Later  in  the  debates,  Mr.  Gerry  "considered 
this  as  a  part  of  the  plan  that  would  be  much  scrutinized.  Tax- 
ation and  representation  arc  strongly  associated  in  the  minds  of 
the  people;  and  they  wilt  not  agree  that  any  but  their  immedi- 
ate representatives  shall  meddle  with  their  purses.  In  short,  the 
acceptance  of  the  plan  will  inevitably  fail  if  the  Senate  be  not 
restrained  from  originating  money  bills."  ^ 

Other  members  took  the  same  view;  but  Mr.  Madison  insisted 
that,  as  the  Convention  had  just  determined  that  the  number  of" 
members  of  the  Senate  should  be  in  proportion  to  the  popula- 
tion of  the  respective  States,  the  precedent  of  the  British  con- 
stitution did  not  apply,  because  the  Senate  thus  constituted 
represented  the  people  as  directly  as  the  House  would  do.  On 
this  view  of  the  case,  Mr.  Gerry's  resolution  was  rejected,  June  , 
>3.  ^1^7%  —  ayes,  three;  nays,  seven." 

On  the  30th  of  June  the  clause  relating  to  the  organization  of 

'  On  Taxation,  (London,  i860.)  p.  24:1. 

■  Elliott's  Debates,  Vol.  V.  pp.  iSS,  416. 

■  Ibid.,  Vol.  V.  p.  189.  See  also  Curtis's  Hisloiy  of  the  Constitution,  VoL  IL 
pp.  314^/ m;. 


RIGHT  TO  ORIGINATE  REVENUE  BILLS.       679 

the  two  houses  of  Congress  was  reconsidered,  and  the  Conven- 
tion found  itself  evenly  divided  on  the  question  whether  each 
State  should  have  an  equal  vote  in  the  Senate,  or  whether  the 
representation  in  that  body  should  be  in  proportion  to  popula- 
tion. It  was  a  contest  between  the  large  and  the  small  States, 
and  for  some  time  the  failure  of  the  whole  plan  seemed  inevita- 
ble. At  that  crisis  Dr.  Franklin,  whose  wisdom  was  sufficient 
for  all  emergencies,  proposed  a  plan  of  adjustment     He  said :  — 

"  The  diversity  of  opinions  turns  on  two  points.  If  a  proportional 
representation  takes  place,  the  small  States  contend  that  their  liberties 
will  be  in  danger.  If  an  equality  of  votes  is  to  be  put  in  its  place,  the 
large  States  say  their  money  will  be  in  danger.  When  a  broad  table  is 
to  be  made,  and  the  edges  of  planks  do  not  fit,  the  artist  takes  a  little 
firora  both  and  makes  a  good  joint.  In  like  manner  here,  both  sides 
must  part  with  some  of  their  demands  in  order  that  they  may  join  in 
some  accommodating  proposition."  * 

The  debate  proceeded  for  two  days,  and  amid  great  dejection, 
until  the  2d  of  July,  when  it  was  resolved  to  refer  the  question 
to  a  committee  of  one  from  each  State,  the  committee  to  be 
elected  by  ballot.  The  following  gentlemen,  whose  names  are 
historic,  were  chosen  as  the  committee:  Mr.  Gerry,  Mr.  Ells- 
worth, Mr.  Yates,  Mr.  Patterson,  Dr.  Franklin,  Mr.  Bedford,  Mr. 
Martin,  Mr.  Mason,  Mr.  Davy,  Mr.  Rutledge,  and  Mr.  Baldwin. 
Curtis  calls  this  committee  the  first  committee  of  compromise  of 
the  Federal  Convention.  On  the  sth  of  July  this  committee 
made  the  following  report :  — 

"  The  committee  to  whom  was  referred  the  eighth  resolution  of  the 
report  from  the  Committee  of  the  whole  House,  and  so  much  of  the 
seventh  as  has  not  been  decided  on,  submit  the  following  report :  — 

"  That  the  subsequent  propositions  be  recommended  to  the  Conven- 
tion on  condition  that  both  shall  be  generally  adopted  :  — 

"  I .  That  in  the  first  branch  of  the  Legislature  each  of  the  States  now 
in  the  Union  shall  be  allowed  one  member  for  every  forty  thousand  of 
the  inhabitants  of  the  description  reported  in  the  seventh  resolution  of  the 
Committee  of  the  whole  House ;  that  each  State  not  containing  that 
number  shall  be  allowed  one  member ;  that  all  bills  for  raising  or  appro- 
priating money,  and  for  fixing  the  salaries  of  the  oflScers  of  the  govern- 
ment of  the  United  States,  shall  originate  in  the  first  branch  of  the 
legislature,  and  shall  not  be  altered  or  amended  by  the  second  branch ; 
and  that  no  money  shall  be  drawn  from  the  public  treasury  but  in  pursu- 
ance of  appropriations  to  be  originated  in  the  first  branch. 

1  Elliott's  Debates,  Vol.  V.  p.  266, 


68o       RIGHT  TO  OHrCtNATB  REVENUE  BILLS. 

"  1.   That   in   liie  second   branch  each   Stale    sluill  have    an   equal 

The  substance  of  the  report  was  this:  the  larger  States 
were  to  allow  the  smaller  States  equal  representation  in  the 
Senate,  on  condition  that  the  small  States  should  allow  to 
the  House  (where  the  large  States  would  have  most  power)  the 
exclusive  right  to  originate  money  bills.  It  was  admitted  on 
all  hands  that  this  adjustment  was  a  compromise,  —  that  the  re- 
port of  tlie  committee  must  be  taken  as  a  whole, 

"  Dr.  Franklin  did  not  mean  to  go  into  a  jnstification  of  the  report ; 
but  as  it  had  been  asked  what  would  be  the  use  of  restraining  the  second 
branch  from  meddling  with  money  bills,  he  could  not  tnit  remark,  that 
it  was  alwaj's  of  importance  that  the  people  should  know  who  had  dis- 
posed of  their  money,  and  how  it  had  been  disposed  of.  It  was  a  maxim 
that  those  who  feel  can  best  judge.  This  end  would,  he  thought,  be 
best  attained  if  money  affairs  were  to  be  confined  to  the  immediate 
representatives  of  the  people.  This  was  his  inducement  to  concur  in 
the  report.  As  to  the  danger  or  difficulty  that  might  arise  from  a 
negative  in  the  second  branch,  where  the  people  would  not  be  propor- 
tionally represented,  it  might  easily  be  got  over  by  declaring  that  there 
should  be  no  such  negative ;  or,  if  that  will  not  do,  by  declaring  there 
shall  be  no  such  branch  at  all."  ' 

On  the  6th  of  July  the  clause  of  the  report  relating  to  revenue 
bills  was  retained  by  a  vote  of  five  to  three."  A  month  later, 
whch  several  articles  of  the  Constitution  were  reported  to  the 
Convention  by  the  Committee  on  Detail,  a  motion  was  made  to 
strike  out  the  clause  relating  to  money  bills,  for  it  should  be 
said  that  from  the  beginning  there  was  considerable  opposition 
to  the  provision.  Some  opposed  it  on  its  own  merits,  and 
others  opposed  it  in  the  hope  that,  should  it  be  stricken  out, 
it  would  carry  out  with  it  the  equal  vote  of  the  States  in  the 
Senate.     On  the  motion  to  strike  out, — 

"  Colonel  Mason  was  unwilling  to  travel  oyer  this  ground  again.  To 
strike  out  the  section  was  to  unhinge  the  compromise  of  which  it  made  a 
part.  The  duration  of  the  Senate  made  it  improper.  He  did  not  ob- 
ject to  that  duration ;  on  the  contrary,  he  approved  of  iL  But,  joined 
with  the  smallness  of  the  number,  it  was  an  argument  against  adding  this 
to  the  other  great  powers  vested  in  that  body.  His  idea  of  an  aristocracy 
was  that  it  was  the  government  of  the  few  over  the  many.  An  aristo- 
cratic body,  hke  the  screw  in  mechanics,  working  its  way  by  slow  degrees 
and  holding  fast  whatever  it  gains,  should  ever  be  suspected  of  an  en- 
1  Elliott's  Detatu,  Vol  V.  p.  x\i,  *  IbliL,  p.  184.  *  Ibid.,  p.  185. 


1 


RIGHT  TO  ORIGINATE  REVENUE  BILLS.      68 1 

croaching  tendency.    The  purse-strings  should  never  be  put  into  its 
hands."  i 

No  one  can  read  this  part  of  the  record  of  those  debates  with- 
out being  impressed  with  the  fact  that  the  vote  which  concluded 
it  was  not  an  expression  of  the  sense  of  the  Convention  on  the 
merits  of  the  clause  itself.  For  the  reasons  already  indicated, 
the  clause  was  stricken  out,  August  8,  by  a  vote  of  seven  to 
four.^  On  the  opening  of  the  convention  the  next  morning,  the 
following  views  were  avowed. 

"  Mr.  Randolph  expressed  hfe  dissatisfaction  at  the  disagreement  yes- 
terday to  section  fifth,  concerning  money  bills,  as  endangering  the  suc- 
cess of  the  plan,  and  extremely  objectionable  in  itself;  and  gave  notice 
that  he  would  move  for  a  reconsideration  of  the  vote."  ^ 

"  Dr.  Franklin  considered  the  two  clauses  —  the  originating  of  money 
bills,  and  the  equality  of  votes  in  the  Senate  —  as  essentially  connected 
by  the  compromise  which  bad  been  agreed  to."  * 

"  Colonel  Mason  said,  unless  the  exclusive  right  of  originating  money 
bills  should  be  restored  to  the  House  of  Representatives,  he  should  — 
not  firom  obstinacy,  but  duty  and  conscience  —  oppose  throughout  the 
equality  of  representation  in  the  Senate."  * 

August  II,  "Mr.  Randolph  moved,  according  to  notice,  to  recon- 
sider Article  IV.  Section  5,  concerning  money  bills  which  had  been 
struck  out.  He  argued,  first,  that  he  had  not  wished  for  this  privilege 
while  a  proportional  representation  in  the  Senate  was  in  contemplation  : 
but  since  an  equality  had  been  fixed  in  that  House,  the  large  States 
would  require  this  compensation  at  least.  Secondly,  that  it  would  make 
the  plan  more  acceptable  to  the  people,  because  they  will  consider  the 
Senate  as  the  riiore  aristocratic  body,  and  will  expect  that  the  usual 
guards  against  its  influence  will  be  provided,  according  to  the  example  of 
Great  Britain.  Thirdly,  the  privilege  will  give  some  advantage  to  the 
House  of  Representatives,  if  it  extends  to  the  originating  only ;  but  still 
more,  if  it  restrains  the  Senate  fi-om  amending.  Fourthly,  he  called  on 
the  smaller  States  to  concur  in  the  measure,  as  the  condition  by  which 
alone  the  compromise  had  entitled  them  to  an  equality  in  the  Senate. 
He  signified  that  he  should  propose,  instead  of  the  original  section,  a 
clause  specifying  that  the  bills  in  question  should  be  for  the  purpose  of 
revenue,  in  order  to  repel  the  objection  against  the  extent  of  the  words 
'raising  money,*  which  might  happen  incidentally;  and  that  the  Senate 
should  not  so  amend  or  alter  as  to  increase  or  diminish  the  sum  ;  in  order 
to  obviate  the  inconveniences  urged  against  a  restriction  of  the  Senate  to 
a  simple  affirmation  or  negative."  * 

1  Elliott's  Debates,  Vol.  V.  p.  394.  «  Ibid.,  p.  395.  •  Ibid.,  p.  395. 

*  Ibid.,  p.  396.  *  Ibid.,  p.397.  •  Ibid.,  p.  410. 


1 


682        RIGHT  TO  ORIGINATE  REVENUE  SILLS. 

In  the  course  of  th«  debate  it  was  suggested  that  the  clause 
aa  propuscd  would  restrain  tlie  Scuate  from  originating  any  bill, 
public  or  private,  which  might  incidentally  affect  tlie  treasury. 
To  obviate  this  objection  Mr.  Randolph  moved  to  amend  the 
clause  by  substituting  the  following:  ■"  Kills  for  raising  money 
for  the  purpose  of  revenue,  or  for  appropriating  the  same,  shall 
originate  in  the  House  of  Representatives,  and  shall  not  be  so 
amended  or  altered  by  the  Senate  as  to  increase  or  dirainisli  the 
sum  to  be  r;iised,  or  change  the  mode  of  levying  it,  or  tlie  ob- 
ject of  its  appropriation." '  , 

It  will  be  seen  that  the  clause  as  here  presented  would  have 
been  even  more  stringent  against  the  Senate  than  the  British 
constitution  now  is  against  the  House  of  Lords,  On  the  13th 
of  August  the  clause  as  amended  was  stricken  out.^  This  vote 
gave  great  dissatisfaction,  and  two  days  later,  while  another 
article  was  under  consideration,  Mr.  Strong  proposed  tlie  fol- 
lowing amendment:  "Each  house  shall  possess  the  right  of 
originating  all  bills,  except  bills  for  raising  money  for  the  pur- 
poses of  revenue,  or  for  appropriating  the  same,  and  for  fixing 
the  salaries  of  the  olTicers  of  the  government,  which  shall  origi- 
nate in  the  House  of  Representatives ;  but  the  Senate  may  pro- 
pose or  concur  with  amendments,  as  in  other  cases."  * 

The  consideration  of  this  amendment  was  postponed  until 
August  31,  when,  with  several  other  subjects  of  compromise,  it 
was  referred  to  a  committee  of  one  from  each  State.  On  the 
4th  of  September  the  committee  reported  a  proposition  giving 
to  the  Senate  the  exclusive  power  to  ratify  treaties,  to  try  all 
impeachments,  and  to  confirm  the  appointments  of  officers.  As 
a  compensation  for  these  exclusive  powers  conferred  upon  the 
Senate,  the  committee  reported  the  next  day  the  following 
clause:  "All  bills  for  raising  revenue  shall  originate  in  the 
House  of  Representatives,  and  shall  be  subject  to  alterations 
and  amendments  by  the  Senate."  * 

The  same  day  Gouvcrneur  Morris  moved  to  postpone  the 
clause.  "  It  had  been  agreed  to  in  the  committee,  on  the 
ground  of  the  compromise,  and  he  should  feel  himself  at  lib- 
erty to  dissent  from  it  if,  on  the  whole,  he  should  not  be  satis- 
fied with  certain  other  parts  to  be  settled,"  * 
"  Mr.  Sherman  was  for  giving  immediate  ease  to  those  who 
'  Elliott's  Debates,  Vul.  V.  p.  414.  *  Ibid.,  p.  4m.  '  Ibid.,  p.  417, 

*  Ibid',  pp-  506,  51C,  511.  *  Ibid,  p.  511. 


RIGHT  TO  ORIGINATE  REVENUE  BILLS.       683 

looked  on  this  clause  as  of  great  moment,  and  for  trusting  to 
their  concurrence  in  other  proper  measures."  ^ 

Mr.  Williamson  said :  **  There  are  seven  States  which  do 
not  contain  one  third  of  the  people.  If  the  Senate  are  to  ap- 
point, less  than  one  sixth  of  the  people  will  have  the  power."  ^ 

Before  the  final  vote  was  taken.  September  8,  the  clause 
was  modified  by  substituting  for  the  paragraph  relating  to 
amendments  by  the  Senate  these  words,  borrowed  from  the 
Constitution  of  Massachusetts :  *'  But  the  Senate  may  propose 
or  concur  with  amendments,  as  in  other  bills."  Thus  amended 
the  section  was  adopted,  —  ayes,  nine;  noes,  two.  At  the  foot 
of  the  page  on  which  this  vote  is  recorded,  Mr.  Madison  ap- 
pended the  following  note :  **  This  was  a  conciliatory  vote,  the 
effect  of  the  compromise  formerly  alluded  to."  ^ 

It  will  be  seen  from  this  history  of  the  clause  that,  while  many 
members  of  the  Convention  favored  it  on  the  general  ground  of 
experience,  borrowed  from  the  British  precedent,  a  still  stronger 
reason  for  its  adoption  was  its  relation  to  other  portions  of  the 
Constitution.  It  was  the  pivot  on  which  turned  the  first  great 
compromise  of  the  Constitution,  and  the  chief  consideration  on 
which  the  last  was  settled.  It  was  at  first  granted  to  the  House 
as  a  compensation  for  the  equal  representation  of  all  the  States 
in  the  Senate ;  and  the  vote  by  which  it  was  stricken  out  came 
near  **  unhinging  the  whole  plan."  And  finally  its  reinsertion 
was  the  consideration  for  which  the  large  States  yielded  to  the 
Senate  the  exclusive  right  to  ratify  treaties,  the  power  of  im- 
peachment, and  the  right  to  confirm  appointments.  I  doubt 
whether  any  other  clause  occasioned  more  debate,  or  played  a 
more  important  part  in  adjusting  the  great  questions  of  diflfer- 
ence  on  which  the  fate  of  the  Constitution  depended. 

I  now  call  attention  to  the  language  employed  in  the  British 
and  American  constitutions,  on  the  subject  under  considera- 
tion. The  substantive  part  of  the  British  rule  of  1678,  on  which 
all  proceedings  of  the  tAVO  houses  in  matters  of  supply  are  now 
founded,  is  in  these  words :  *'  All  bills  for  the  granting  of  ...  . 
aids  and  supplies  ought  to  begin  with  the  Commons,  ....  and 
ought  not  to  be  changed  or  altered  by  the  House  of  Lords." 
Compare  this  with  the  language  of  our  Constitution:  "  All  bills 
for  raising  revenue  shall  originate  in  the  House  of  Representa- 
tives ;  but  the  Senate  may  propose  or  concur  with  amendments, 

1  Elliott's  Debates,  Vol.  V.  p.  511.  ^  Ibid,  p.  514.  •  Ibid,  p.  529. 


^^'^84       RIGHT  TO  ORIGJNATE  REVENUE  RfLLS.  ^^ 

as  on  other  bills."  Dismissing  from  the  comparison  the  last 
clause  of  each,  in  regard  to  amendments,  on  which  the  two 
Constitutions  take  opposite  grounds,  we  find  in  the  remaining 
clauses  precisely  the  same  thought,  expressed  in  different  words, 
thus;  "All  bills  for  the  granting  of  aids  and  supplies."  "All 
bills  for  raising  revenue."  "Aids  and  supplies"  are  granted  to 
the  British  government,  as  to  ours,  by  "  raising  revenue."  Con- 
gress, in  "  raising  revenue,"  grants  "  aids  and  supplies  " ;  or,  in 
the  language  more  frequently  adopted  in  this  country,  provides 
■■ways  and  means"  for  the  support  of  the  government.  The 
Jaws  of  language  will  not  permit  a  construction  of  one  of  these 
clauses  which  will  not  apply  to  the  other. 

But  we  arc  not  left  lo  the  language  alone.  Two  centuries  of 
undisputed  precedents  have  fixed  the  interpretation  of  tlie  Brit- 
ish clause,  and  left  no  room  for  doubt  or  cavil.  Just  two  hun- 
dred years  ago,  the  very  question  now  in  debate  between  the 
two  houses  of  Congress  was  elaborately  discussed  between  the 
Lords  and  Commons,  and  settled  as  this  House  now  asks  to 
have  it  settled.  The  Lords  claimed  that,  in  reducing  the  duty 
on  sugar  from  one  penny  per  pound  to  three  farthings,  tlicy  did 
nut  "  grant  supplies,"  but  withheld  them.  Our  Senate  now 
claims  that  in  repealing  a  tax  on  incomes  they  are  not  "  raising 
revenue,"  but  are  reducing  it.  The  Lords  were  not  permitted 
thus  to  stick  in  the  bark,  and  to  exploit  the  meaning  out  of  a 
constitutional  rule;  and  since  the  final  adjustment  in  1678,  they 
have  never  pretended  that  bills  either  for  imposing  or  repealing 
taxes  can  originate  in  their  house.  There,  as  here,  the  clause 
was  intended  to  place  in  the  popular  branch  of  the  legislature 
the  exclusive  right  of  originating  bills  for  the  management  of 
the  revenue.  TTiere,  as  here,  all  such  bills,  whether  for  an  in- 
crease or  decrease  of  taxes,  were  known  as  "money  bills."  If 
gentlemen  will  examine  the  citations  made  from  the  proceed- 
ings of  the  Constitutional  Convention,  they  will  notice  that 
throughout  the  long  debate  this  clause  was  spoken  of  as  the 
clause  relating  to  "  money  bills."  This  was  the  interpreta- 
tion given  to  the  clause  by  those  who  made  it  a  part  of  the 
Constitution ;  and  I  shall  presently  show  that  this  was  also  the 
interpretation  given  to  it  by  the  First  Congress,  and  by  all  suc- 
ceeding Congresses  for  half  a  century. 

I  now  invite  the  attention  of  the  House  to  some  of  the  pre- 
cedents in  the  practice  of  Congress. 


RIGHT  TO  ORIGINATE  REVENUE  BILLS.       68 S 

The  scope  and  meaning  of  this  clause  of  the  Constitution  was 
discussed  at  the  first  session  of  the  First  Congress ;  and  many 
of  the  distinguished  men  who  aided  in  framing  the  Constitution 
itself  took  part  in  the  debate,  and  gave  their  interpretation  of 
this  clause.  When  the  bill  for  the  establishment  of  the  Treas- 
ury Department  was  under  discussion  in  the  House  of  Repre- 
sentatives, on  the  25th  of  June,  1789,  Mr.  Page  moved  to  strike 
out  from  the  bill  the  clause  which  made  it  the  duty  of  the  Sec- 
retary of  the  Treasury  **  to  digest  and  report  a  plan  for  the 
improvement  and  management  of  the  revenue  and  the  support 
of  the  public  credit." 

In  support  of  this  motion  Mr.  Page  argued  that  "  it  might 
be  well  enough  to  enjoin  upon  him  the  duty  of  making  out  and 
preparing  estimates,  but  to  go  on  any  further  would  be  a  dan- 
gerous innovation  upon  the  constitutional  privileges  of  this 
House." 

Mr.  Tucker  agreed  that  the  objection  was  well  founded ;  and 
in  concluding  his  speech  on  the  subject  said :  **  I  can  never 
agree  to  have  money  bills  originated  and  forced  upon  this  House 
by  a  man  destitute  of  legislative  authority,  while  the  Constitu- 
tion gives  such  power  solely  to  the  House  of  Representatives ; 
for  this  reason,  I  cheerfully  second  thef  motion  for  striking  out 
the  words." 

Mr.  Livermore  said:  **  The  power  of  originating  money  bills 
within  these  walls,  I  look  upon  as  a  sacred  deposit,  which  we 
may  neither  violate  nor  divest  ourselves  of." 

Mr.  Gerry  said :  **  Does  not  the  Constitution  expressly  declare 
that  the  House  solely  shall  exercise  the  power  of  originating 
revenue  bills?  Now,  what  is  meant  by  reporting  plans?  It 
surely  includes  the  idea  of  originating  money  bills ;  that  is,  a 
bill  for  improving  the  revenue,  or,  in  other  words,  for  bringing 
revenue  into  the  treasury." 

Mr.  Lawrence  said  "  that  the  power  of  reporting  plans  for  the 
improvement  of  the  revenue  is  the  power  of  originating  money 
bills.  The  Constitution  declares  that  power  to  be  vested  solely 
in  this  House." 

Mr.  Madison  said :  "  With  respect  to  originating  money  bills, 
the  House  has  the  sole  right  to  do  it." 

Not  all  of  the  members  whom  I  have  quoted  were  in  favor  of 
striking  out  the  whole  clause,  as  moved  by  Mr.  Page,  and  the 
amendment  in  that  form  was  rejected;  but,  on  motion  of  Mr. 


686       SIGHT  TO  ORIGINATE  EE  VENUE  BILLS. 


\ 


Fitzsimmons,  the  word  "report  "was  stricken  out  and  "pre- 
pared "  inserted  by  a  large  majority.' 

I  have  quoted  these  authorities  for  the  purpose  of  showing 
that  the  fathers  of  the  Constitution  did  not  stand  on  any  such 
technicality  as  the  special  meaning  of  the  word  "raising"  in 
their  interpretation  of  this  clause.  Throughout  this  whole  de- 
bate, the  clause  was  interpreted  to  mean  that  the  House  had  the 
sole  power  of  originating  money  bills;  and  the  record  does  not 
show  that  any  member  took  any  other  view  of  the  case.  It 
should  be  borne  in  mind  that  the  words  "  money  bills,"  as  used 
in  this  debate,  had  the  broad  meaning  given  to  them  in  Eng- 
land, and  included  bills  to  reduce  as  well  as  bills  to  increase 
the  revenue.  This  debate  is  important  as  being  the  earliest 
interpretation  of  the  meaning  of  the  clause  under  considera- 
tion given  by  Congress  itself.  The  jealousy  with  which  that 
Congress  guarded  the  clause  is  also  worthy  our  thoughtful  at- 
tention, 

A  prominent  event  occurred  in  the  Twenty-second  Congress, 
which  brought  out  much  discussion  of  this  clause  of  the  Con- 
stitution. The  secession  threatened  by  South  Carolina,  the 
great  agitLition-  throughout  the  country  on  the  subject  of  the 
tariff,  and  the  fears  of  civil  war  that  distressed  all  our  leading 
statesmen,  led  Mr.  Clay  to  believe  that  he,  as  the  acknowledged 
leader  in  tariff  legislation,  could  reconcile  the  conflicting  ele- 
ments by  offering  a  bill  for  the  reduction  of  duties.  In  pur- 
suance of  this  purpose,  on  the  I2th  of  February,  1833,  he 
offered  a  bill  which  has  since  been  known  as  the  "  Compromise 
Tariff  Bill."  In  introducing  it  he  said:  "  I  owe,  sir,  an  apology 
to  the  Senate  for  this  course  of  action,  because,  although  strictly 
parliamentary,  it  is  nevertheless  out  of  the  usual  practice  of  this 
body." 

Mr.  Forsyth,  of  Georgia,  immediately  objected  to  the  bill, 
that  "  it  was  a  violation  of  the  Constitution,  because  the  Senate 
had  no  power  to  raise  revenue."  Mr.  Clay  insisted  that  it  "was 
not  a  bill  to  raise  the  duties,  but  to  reduce  them,  and  therefore 

did  not  come  within  the  reach  of  an  equitable  objection 

This  was  a  bill  to  reduce  the  duties  except  in  a  single  clause, 
and  that  clause  relates  to  the  act"  which  had  not  yet  gone  into 

•  For  ihe  ibove  history,  see  Annals  of  Congress,  [Giles  and  Scaton,  Washing- 
Ion,  1834,)  Vol.  I.  pp.  615--617,  621,  635,  6j6,  629,  631. 

'  The  act  oE  July  14,  1832;  to  go  into  operation,  March  3,  1833. 


RIGHT  TO  ORIGINATE  REVENUE  BILLS.       687 

operation He  did  not  believe  it  was  the  intention  of  the 

Constitution  so  far  to  restrict  the  right  of  the  Senate  as  to  pre- 
clude the  origination  of  a  bill  to  repeal  any  existing  law."  Mr. 
Dickerson,  of  New  Jersey,  said:  "  Such  a  bill  as  this  could  not, 
in  his  opinion,  originate  in  the  Senate." 

After  much  hesitation  the  Senate  allowed  the  bill  to  be  intro- 
duced, but  in  the  course  of  the  debate  which  followed,  the 
constitutional  right  of  the  Senate  was  very  fully  discussed,  and 
many  leading  Senators  expressed  the  opinion,  in  the  most  pos- 
itive manner,  that  the  Senate  had  no  right  to  originate  such  a 
bill.  While  there  was  a  very  large  majority  of  the  Senate  in 
favor  of  the  bill  as  a  revenue  measure,  yet  from  the  debates  it 
is  doubtful  whether  a  majority  would  not  have  voted  against  it 
on  the  constitutional  ground,  if  the  test  had  been  made.  No 
name  can  give  more  weight  to  an  opinion  on  the  proper  mean- 
ing of  the  Constitution  than  that  of  Mr.  Webster,  and  near  the 
conclusion  of  this  debate  he  gave  his  opinion  on  the  clause 
of  the  Constitution  now  under  discussion,  in  language  at  once 
so  clear  and  comprehensive  that  it  ought  never  to  be  omitted 
from  any  discussion  of  this  question.  I  therefore  quote  it 
entire. 

"  Mr.  Webster  said  the  constitutional  question  must  be  regarded  as 
important ;  but  it  was  one  which  could  not  be  settled  by  the  Senate.  It 
was  purely  a  question  of  privilege,  and  the  decision  of  it  belonged  alone 
to  the  House.  The  Senate,  by  the  Constitution,  could  not  originate 
bills  for  raising  revenue.  It  was  of  no  consequence  whether  the  rate  of 
duty  were  increased  or  decreased  ;  if  it  was  a  money  bill,  it  belonged  to 
the  House  to  originate  it.  In  the  House  there  was  a  Committee  of  Ways 
and  Means  organized  expressly  for  such  objects.  There  was  no  such 
committee  of  the  Senate.  The  constitutional  provision  was  taken  from 
the  practice  of  the  British  Parliament,  whose  usages  were  well  known  to 
the  framers  of  the  Constitution,  with  the  modification  that  the  Senate 
might  alter  and  amend  money  bills,  which  was  denied  by  the  House  of 
Commons  to  that  of  Lords.  This  subject  belonged  exclusively  to 
the  House  of  Representatives.  The  attempt  to  evade  the  question  by 
contending  that  the  present  bill  was  intended  for  protection,  and  not 
revenue,  afforded  no  relief,  for  it  was  protection  by  means  of  revenue. 
It  was  not  the  less  a  money  bill  from  its  object  being  protection. 
After  1842  this  bill  would  raise  the  revenue,  or  it  would  not  be  raised 
by  existing  laws.  He  was  altogether  opposed  to  the  provisions  of 
this  bill,  but  this  objection  was  one  which  it  belonged  to  the  House  to 
make." 


tS8        RIGHT  TO  ORICmATE  REVENUE  BILLS. 

It  will  be  seen  from  this  that  Mr.  Webster  emphatically  de- 
nies the  right  of  the  Senate  to  originate  a  bill  to  reduce  revr 
cnuc.  Before  the  close  of  the  debate  it  became  manifest,  even 
to  Mr.  Clay  himself,  that  he  could  not  safely  risk  the  fate  of  hi$ 
bill  with  this  constitutional  objection  impending.  His  friendr 
in  the  House  introduced  and  the  House  passed  a  bill  in  the  same 
words,  and  sent  it  to  the  Senate,  whereupon  Mr.  Clay  announced 
that  the  bill  of  the  House  would  "supersede  the  objection  of 
some  Senators,  who  believed  the  Senate  was  not  the  proper  place 
for  the  origin  of  this  bill."  On  the  following  day  he  moved  to 
lay  his  own  bill  on  the  table,  which  was  done.  Four  days  later, 
the  House  bill  passed  the  Senate,  by  a  vote  of  twenty-nine  to 
sixteen.' 

I  have  cited  the  history  of  the  Compromise  Tariff  Bill  ta 
show  how  the  Senate  itself  disposed  of  this  question  the  first 
time,  1  believe,  it  ever  arose  in  the  naked  form  of  a  proposition 
to  reduce  duties. 

On  the  13th  of  September,  1S37,  a  bill  was  reported  to  the 
Senate  authorizing  the  issue  of  treasury  notes,  and  on  the  i8th 
of  that  month  it  passed  that  body  by  a  vote  of  forty-two  yeas  to 
five  nays  (Clay,  Crittenden,  Preston,  Southard,  Spence).  On 
the  30th  of  September,  the  House,  in  Committee  of  the  Whole, 
took  up  and  considered  the  Senate  bill. 

Mr.  Bell,  of  Tennessee,  said :  "  He  had  been  waiting  for  some 
who,  he  understood,  were  prepared  to  contest  the  constitutional 
right  of  the  Senate  to  send  to  the  House  a  bill  of  this  descrip- 
tion. It  was  a  money  bill,  and  by  the  Constitution  all  such 
bills  must  originate  in  the  House.  The  proper  course  would  be 
first  to  take  a  vote  on  that  question." 

Mr.  Adams,  of  Massachusetts,  said :  "  That  in  his  own  opin- 
ion the  matter  admitted  of  no  question  at  all.  If  ever  there  was 
a  money  bill,  this  was  one ;  but  he  should  make  no  motion,  be- 
cause he  well  knew,  if  he  did,  the  previous  question  would  be 
called  and  the  motion  voted_  down.  If,  however,  the  gentleman 
from  Tennessee  was  disposed  to  go  into  the  discussion,  he 
should  have  his  most  cordial  support.  This  House  had  too 
long  suffered  the  other  branch  of  the  legislature  to  dictate  to 
it  every  measure  relating  to  revenue.  For  the  last  five  years 
not  one  of  all  the  measures  of  that  character  had  originated 
in  that  House." 

1  For  the  above  hUtorj.ueCongresaianal  Debates,  {Galet  and  Seaton,)  Vc^DC 
Pan  I.  pp.  46s,  463,  477, 478,  731. 


I 


RIGHT  TO  ORIGINATE  REVENUE  BILLS.       689 

Mr.  Haynes,  of  Georgia,  said :  "  It  was  now  too  late  to  raise 
an  objection  of  this  kind ;  the  House  had  received  the  bill  and 
referred  it,  and  it  had  been  reported  on.  If  such  an  objection 
did  exist,  this  was  not  the  place  to  make  it." 

Mr.  Wise,  of  Virginia,  said :  **  He  was  astonished  to  hear  such 
language  from  the  gentleman  from  Georgia.  Did  not  that  gen- 
tleman know  that  at  every  step,  in  any,  even  the  last  stage  of 
a  bill,  when  it  had  received  its  third  reading,  if  the  House  dis- 
covered a  constitutional  objection  to  lie  against  its  passage,  it 
was  never  too  late  to  bring  it  forward?  It  never  could  be  too 
late  for  the  House  to  receive  an  objection  to  doing  that  which 
it  had  no  power  to  do.  It  never  could  waive  a  constitutional 
objection  on  the  ground  of  laches,  ^e  moved  that  the  com- 
mittee rise  and  report  that  a  bill  like  this  could  not  constitu- 
tionally originate  in  the  Senate.  Thus,  in  the  House,  that  report 
might  be  adopted  and  the  bill  sent  back  to  the  Senate,  with  a 
message  declaring  that  the  House  could  ijot  act  upon  the  bill." 

Mr.  Cambreling,  of  New  York,  chairman  of  the  Committee  of 
Ways  and  Means,  said :  **  He  hoped  the  committee  w6uld  not 
rise.  This  bill  did  not  propose  the  levying  of  a  tax ;  it  was  a 
mere  anticipation  of  the  receipt  of  revenue.  The  Compromise 
Act  of  1833  had  been  sent  from  the  Senate  ....  to  the  House, 

although  it  proposed  an  increase  of  taxes The  present 

bill  created  no  public  debt,  it  merely  anticipated  means  which 

were  ample No  constitutional  objection  had  been  urged 

in  the  Senate,  ....  and  he  hoped  the  House  would  proceed 
with  the  bill." 

Mr.  Mercer,  of  Virginia,  said :  **  He  was  astonished  at  the 
position  taken  by  the  chairman  of  the  Committee  of  Ways  and 
Means.  It  was  not  a  fact  that  the  Compromise  Bill  had  origi- 
nated in  the  Senate ;   it  had  originated  in  the  House." 

Mr.  Cambreling  said:  "To  avoid  all  difficulty,  he  would 
move  to  pass  by  the  Senate's  bill,  and  take  up  that  of  the 
House." 

Mr.  Robertson,  of  Virginia,  **  contended  that  the  House  could 
not  thus  pass  over  the  greatest  breach  of  its  privileges  which 
had  ever  been  perpetrated.  He  could  not  understand  how 
the  gentleman  could  be  so  insensible  to  the  indignity  thus 
cast  on  the  House.  Should  they  continue  to  take  bills,  raising 
millions  on  millions,  at  the  dictation  of  the  Senate  or  the  Presi- 
dent, when  the  Constitution  plainly  forbade  it?" 

VOL.  I.  44 


3 


6qo     kight  to  originate  revenue  bills. 

After  some  further  discussion  the  House  bill  was  taken  i 
moved  by  Mr,  Cambreling,  and  finally  passed.  On  the  loth 
of  October  the  House  bill  passed  the  Senate  without  amend- 
ment, —  yeas  twenty-five,  nays  six.' 

A  still  more  striking  precedent  is  found  in  the  proceedings  of 
the  Senate  during  the  first  session  of  the  Twenty-eighth  Con- 
gress. A  strong  reaction  had  set  in  against  the  Whig  Tariff  of 
1842,  and  on  the  19th  of  December,  1843,  Senator  McDuflie,  of 
South  Carolina,  introduced  a  bill,  of  three  sections,  to  revive  lli£ 
Compromise  Tariif  of  1833.     The  bill  is  as  follows ;  — 

"  Be  it  eftacted,  lie.  That  so  much  of  tlie  existing  law  imposing  duties 
upon  foreign  imports  as  provides  that  duties  ad  valorem  on  certain  com- 
niodities  shall  be  assessed  upOn  an  assumed  minimum  value  lie,  and  the 
same  is  hereby,  repealed  ;  and  that  said  duties  be  hereafter  assessed  on 
the  true  value  of  such  commodities. 

"Sec  2.  And  be  it  further  ena<ted,  That,  in  all  cases  in  which  the 
existing  duty  upon  any  imported  commodity  exceeds  thirty  per  centum 
on  the  value  thereof,  such  duty  shall  hereafter  be  reduced  to  thirty  per 
centum  ad  valoran. 

"  Sec  3.  And  he  it  further  enacted.  That  from  and  after  the  3  ist  of 
DctL'mbcr  iic>:t  nil  duties  upon  foreign  imports  shall  be  reduced  to 
twenty-five  per  centum,  and  fiiam  and  after  the  31st  of  December,  1S44, 
to  twenty  per  centum,  ad  valorem," 

The  bill  was  referred  to  the  Committee  on  Finance,  and  on 
the  9th  of  January,  1844,  Senator  Evans,  of  Maine,  reported  it 
back  from  the  Finance  Committee  with  the  following  resolu- 
tions :  — 

"  Resolved,  TTiat  the  bill  entitled  '  A  Bill  to  revive  the  Act  of  the  2d 
of  March,  1833,  usually  called  the  Compromise  Act,  and  to  modify  the 
existing  duties  upon  foreign  imports,  in  conformity  with  its  provisions,'  is 
a  bill  for  raising  revenue  within  the  meaning  of  the  seventh  section  of  the 
first  article  of  the  Constitution,  and  cannot  therefore  originate  in  the 
Senate :  Therefore, 

"  Resolved,  That  it  be  indefinitely  postponed." 

These  resolutions  and  the  bill  of  Mr.  McDuffie  were  debated 
every  week,  and  almost  every  day,  from  the  19th  of  January  to 
the  31st  of  May;  and  nothing  can  be  more  significant  of  the 
sentiment  of  the  Senate  than  the  final  vote  by  which  the  resolu- 

»  For  the  above  hUtory,  see  Congressioiul  Debate*,  Vol.  XIV.  Part  I.  pp. 
iiSa,"S3- 


RIGHT  TO  ORIGINATE  REVENUE  BILLS.       691 

tions  were  disposed  6f.  To  pass  the  resolutions  and  indefinitely 
postpone  McDuffie^s  bill  would  seem  to  commit  many  Senators 
against  the  reduction  of  tariff  who  were  earnestly  in  favor  of 
reduction;  but  the  Evans  resolutions. were  directed  solely  to  the 
constitutional  right  of  the  Senate  to  originate  the  McDuffie 
bill.  On  the  31st  of  May,  1844,  just  before  the  final  vote  on 
the  Evans  resolution  was  taken,  Mr.  Allen,  of  Ohio,  moved 
to  amend  by  striking  out  all  after  **  that,**  in  the  first  line  of 
the  first  resolution,  and  inserting  the  following :  "  The  duties 
imposed  on  importations  by  existing  laws  are  unjust  and  op- 
pressive, and  ought  to  be  repealed.*'  On  this  amendment 
eighteen  Senators  voted  yea,  and  twenty-five  nay.  But  on  the 
Evans  resolution  itself,  which  was  a  deliberate  expression  of 
the  Senate's  opinion  of  their  constitutional  rights,  the  vote 
stood  thirty-three  yeas  and  four  nays ;  only  four  Senators  vot- 
ing that  the  Senate  had  the  right  to  originate  such  a  bill.  It 
would  be  difficult  to  find,  in  the  recent  history  of  Congress, 
the  same  number  of  names  of  so  great  authority  as  those  re- 
corded in  favor  of  the  Evans  resolution.  Among  them  were 
Bayard;  Buchanan,  Choate,  Rives,  and  Wright* 

In  the  first  session  of  the  Thirty-fourth  Congress  there  oc- 
curred a  very  able  and  very  interesting  debate  on  another  phase 
of  the  constitutional  clause  now  under  consideration.  In  the 
House,  there  was  a  long  and  fierce  contest  over  the  election  of 
Speaker,  which  greatly  delayed  the  course  of  legislation.  While 
this  struggle  was  going  on,  Mr.  Brodhead  of  Pennsylvania  sub- 
mitted to  the  Senate,  on  the  nth  of  December,  1855,  the  fol- 
lowing resolution :  "  That  the  Committee  on  Finance  be  directed 
to  inquire  into  the  expediency  of  reporting  the  appropria- 
tion bills  for  the  support  of  the  government,  or  adopting  other 
measures,  with  a  view  of  obtaining  more  speedy  action  on 
said  bills.*' 

Mr.  Brodhead  proposed  to  give  full  time  for  consideration, 
and  said  that  he  should  then  "  ask  the  Senate  to  consider  the 
question  of  the  power  and  the  right  of  this  body  to  originate 
the  general  appropriation  bills."  On  the  7th  of  January  fol- 
lowing, Mr.  Brodhead  defended  his  resolution  in  an  elaborate 
speech.  The  debate  was  continued  from  time  to  time,  and 
concluded  on   the  7th  of  February,  when  the  Senate  passed 

1  For  the  above  history,  see  Congressional  Globe,  First  Session,  Twenty-eighth 
Congress,  Part  I.  pp.  47,  121,  633. 


692       RIGHT  TO  ORIGINATE  REVENUE  BILLS, 

the  resolution.  In  the  course  of  the  debate  the  constitutional 
clause  was  very  ably  discussed.  Senator  Brodhead  argued,  first, 
that  the  original  draft  of  the  clause,  as  adopted  by  the  Consti- 
tutional Convention,  expressly  excluded  the  Senate  from  the 
right  to  originate  appropriation  bills;  but,  secondly,  as  the 
clause  was  finally  adopted,  no  exclusion  of  appropriation  bills 
was  named,  and  it  must  therefore  be  inferred  that  the  Senate 
possessed  the  right  of  originating  them.^  Mr.  Seward  replied 
briefly  to  Mr.  Brodhead  on  the  same  day.     He  said :  — 

"  It  is  true  that,  according  to  the  letter  of  the  Constitution,  appropria- 
tion bills  may  be  originated  by  the  Senate,  for  they  are  not  strictly  reve- 
nue bills,  yet  we  all  know  that,  in  point  of  fact,  they  have  come  into  the 
place  of  revenue  bills.  We  make  a  revenue  bill  but  once  in  ten  or 
twelve  years,  and  these  appropriation  bills  are  in  fact  what  were  intended, 
I  suppose,  by  the  framers  of  the  Constitution  as  bills  of  revenue.  They 
appropriate  the  revenue,  which  is  only  regulated  by  a  biU  passed  once  in 

a  period  of  several  years As  the  tendency  of  things  strikes  me, 

it  is  now,  and  has  for  many  years  been,  to  concentrate  in  the  Senate  a 
larger  share  than  in  the  House  of  the  various  legislation  which  the  coun- 
try requires."  * 

From  the  more  elaborate  speech  of  Mr.  Seward,  made  a 
month  later,  I  quote  a  few  striking  passages. 

"The  government  has  been  in  operation  since  the  year  17S9,  a  period 
of  more  than  half  a  centur>%  and  never  yet  has  a  general  approi)riation  bill 
been  prepared,  or  reported,  or  submitted  to  the  Senate,  or  sent  to  the 
House  of  Representatives  from  this  body.  On  the  other  hand,  the  prac- 
tice for  this  i)eriod  of  seventy  years  has  been,  that  all  appropriation  bills 
of  that  character  have  originated  in  the  House  of  Representatives,  and 
have  been  sent  to  this  house  for  its  concurrence  and  amendment.  As 
this,  then,  is  a  proposition  made,  not  only  for  the  first  time  within  our  own 
experience,  but  for  the  first  time  since  the  foundation  of  the  government, 
we  are  to  presume  that  it  will  be  admitted  that  what  is  proposed  is  an 
innovation,  a  direct,  specific,  and  effective  innovation." 

After  speaking  of  the  decay  of  liberty  in  Europe,  and  the 
despotic  spirit  which,  from  the  beginning  of  the  sixteenth  cen- 
tury, overpowered  the  peoples  of  Europe,  he  said :  — 

"  The  British  government  alone  presented  then,  as  I  think  it  presents 
now  almost  alone,  an  instance  of  the  existence  of  a  limited  monarchy, 
conservative  of  the  freedom  of  the  people.    Some  maxims  which  were  well 

^  Congressional  Globe,  January  7,  1856,  pp.  160,  161.  *^  Ibid.,  p.  162. 


RIGHT  TO  ORIGINATE  REVENUE  BILLS.       693 

understood  in  Europe,  but  were  adhered  to  only  by  Great  Britain,  saved 
this  great,  beneficial,  and  benign  result  One  of  those  was  that  the  power 
of  raising  and  applying  money  belonged  to  the  House  of  Commons,  to 
the  people's  House,  —  to  the  House  which  directiy  represented  the 
people  as  distinct  from  the  Executive  himself,  or  from  that  other  branch 
of  the  legislature  which  represented  a  distinct  interest  in  the  state." 

After  showing  that  this  feature  of  our  Constitution  was  bor- 
rowed from  that  of  Great  Britain,  he  said :  — 

"  By  money  bills  was  understood,  as  is  now  understood  in  Great  Brit- 
ain, equally  bills  for  raising  moneys  and  bills  for  paying  moneys  for  the 
support  of  the  government.  Here,  in  modem  times,  we  have  come  to 
distinguish  between  bills  for  raising  money  and  bills  for  appropriating 
money  or  appropriating  revenue ;  but  in  the  British  system  the  principle 
prevailed  then,  and  it  yet  prevails,  that  the  House  of  Commons,  re- 
garded as  the  representatives  of  the  people,  had  the  exclusive  power 
of  originating  bills  for  the  raising  and  for  the  expenditure  of  revenue. 
It  was  this  power  which  carried  the  Commons  of  Great  Britain  through 
that  revolution  in  which  they  saved  the  cause  of  national  liberty  and 
of  constitutional  freedom  when  it  was  in  danger  of  being  overborne 
by  the  influence  and  power  of  the  Executive  and  of  the  House  of 
Lords." 

Mr.  Seward  then  alluded  to  the  compromises  of  the  Consti- 
tution, in  which  this  clause  played  so  important  a  part,  and 
referred  to  the  fact  cited  by  Senator  Brodhead,  that  in  the  origi- 
nal draft  of  the  Constitution  appropriation  bills  were  especially 
mentioned  as  belonging  to  the  House  to  originate,  but  that  in 
the  final  draft  they  were  omitted ;  and  on  this  point  he  said :  — 

"  I  am  not  going  to  contend  that  the  provision  of  the  Constitution  which 
I  have  read,  by  its  letter,  forbids  the  Senate  firom  originating  appropria- 
tion bills ;  its  letter  clearly  concedes  it,  and  I  concede  also  that  there  is 
an  argument  to  be  drawn  from  the  fact  that  the  Convention  discussed  the 
proposition  in  both  its  shapes,  and  finally  adopted  the  one  which  we  now 
find,  in  which  the  limitation  is  applied  only  to  bills  originating  revenue, 
that  the  Convention  may  have  considered  that  appropriation  bills  might 
be  originated  in  the  Senate. 

"  But  against  this  argument  is  one  which  seems  to  me  perfectly  conclu- 
sive, and  it  is  this  reply :  whatever  the  Convention  may  have  purposed, 
and  however  they  may  have  understood  the  Constitution  which  they 
have  framed,  the  fact  is  a  stubborn  one  that  the  Senate  has  never  origi- 
nated an  appropriation  bill,  but  that  it  has  always  conceded  to  the  House 
of  Representatives  the  origination  of  appropriation  bills ;  and  the  House 


1 


694        RIGHT  TO  ORIGINATE  REVENUE  BILLS. 

of  Representatives  has  ne\-er  conceded  to  the  Senate  the  right  to  origi- 
nate such  bilb,  but  has  always  insisted  upon  and  executed  that  right 
itself.  This  could  not  have  been  accidental ;  it  was  therefore  designed. 
The  design  and  purpose  were  those  of  the  contemporaries  of  the  Consti- 
tution itself,  and  it  evinces  iheir  understanding  of  the  subject,  wliich  was 
that  bills  of  a  general  nature  for  appropriating  the  public  money,  or  for 
laying  taxes  or  burdens  on  the  people,  direct  or  indirect  in  their  opera- 
lion,  belonged  to  tlic  province  of  the  House  of  Representatives,' ' 

Mr.  Sumner  also  made  an  elaborate  and  powerful  speech,  de- 
fending the  positions  Mr.  Seward  had  assumed.  Mr.  Wilson,  of 
Massachusetts,  strongly  indorsed  tlie  position  of  his  colleague 
and  Mr.  Seward.  As  already  remarked,  the  opposite  view  pre- 
vailed in  the  Senate,  and  the  resolution  passed,  February  7, 1856. 
In  pursuance  of  this  resolution,  the  Senate  Committee  on  Fi- 
nance reported  the  general  appropriation  bill  for  invalid  pen- 
sions. It  passed  the  Senate  on  tlie  28th  of  February.  Soon 
afterward  the  Senate  also  passed  the  general  appropriation  bill 
for  the  repair  of  fortifications.  Both  these  bills  were  laid  on 
the  table  of  the  House  on  the  lyth  of  April,  without  having 
been  referred  or  debated,  thus  ending  the  attempt  of  the  Senate 
to  change  the  uniform,  unbroken  custom  of  the  government 
from  its  foundation  to  the  present  time ;  and  it  may  still  be  said, 
as  Mr.  Seward  declared  in  1856,  that  up  to  this  time  no  general 
appropriation  bill  which  originated  in  the  Senate  ever  became 
a  law. 

There  may  be  other  precedents  than  those  I  have  cited ; 
but,  after  considerable  search  among  the  historical  records  of 
the  government,  I  have  found  no  others  in  which  the  question 
now  at  issue  was  discussed.  .Justice  to  the  history  of  the  sub- 
ject requires,  however,  that  I  should  mention  one  instance  in 
which  the  Senate  originated  a  bill  that  subsequently  became  a 
law,  and  which  may  perhaps  be  regarded  as  a  precedent  on  the 
other  side.  It  was  the  act  of  March  3,  1815,  repealing  several 
acts  imposing  duties  on  the  tonnage  of  ships  and  vessels,  and 
regulating  the  relative  duties  charged  on  goods  imported  in  for- 
eign vessels  and  vessels  of  the  United  States, 

By  examining  this  act,  it  will  be  seen  that  it  was  rather  a 

regulation  of  commerce  than  of  revenue,  and  its  object  was  to 

regulate  the  tonnage  dues  on  ships.     It  does  not  appear  that, 

*  For  the  above  quotations  from  Mr-  Seward,  ace  CoagreHiaiul  Globe,  Febraary 

7. 185^  PP- 375.376- 


RIGHT  TO  ORIGINATE  REVENUE  BILLS,       695 

in  the  course  of  the  debate,  the  constitutional  question  was 
raised.  The  act,  consisting  of  a  single  brief  section,  passed  the 
House  on  the  last  day  of  the  session,  without  debate.  There 
may  be  other  precedents  in  the  same  direction  as  strong  as 
this,  but  I  have  not  found  them.  I  will  also  remark,  that  the 
custom  is  well  settled  that  the  Senate  may  originate  private  bills 
that  appropriate  money  to  claimants. 

In  reviewing  the  ground  I  have  travelled  over,  the  results  of 
the  investigation  may  be  thus  summed  up :  — 

First  That  the  exclusive  right  of  the  House  of  Commons  of 
Great  Britain  to  originate  money  bills  is  so  old  that  the  date  of 
its  origin  is  unknown ;  that  it  has  always  been  regarded  as  one 
of  the  strongest  bulwarks  of  British  freedom  against  usurpations 
of  the  King  and  of  the  House  of  Lords,  and  has  been  guarded 
with  the  most  jealous  care ;  that  in  the  many  contests  which 
have  arisen  on  this  subject  between  the  Lords  and  Commons 
during  the  last  three  hundred  years,  the  Commons  have  never 
given  way,  but  have  rather  enlarged  than  diminished  their  juris- 
diction of  this  subject;  and  that  since  the  year  1678  the  Lords 
have  conceded,  with  scarcely  a  struggle,  that  the  Commons  had 
the  exclusive  right  to  originate,  not  only  bills  for  raising  reve- 
nue, but  for  decreasing  it;  not  only  for  imposing,  but  also  for 
repealing  taxes ;  and  that  the  same  exclusive  right  extended  also 
to  all  general  appropriations  of  money. 

Second.  The  clause  of  our  Constitution  now  under  debate 
was  borrowed  from  England,  and  was  intended  to  have  the 
same  force  and  effect  in  all  respects  as  the  corresponding  fea- 
ture of  the  British  constitution,  with  this  single  exception,  that 
our  Senate  is  permitted  to  offer  amendments,  as  the  House  of 
Lords  is  not. 

Third.  In  addition  to  the  influence  of  the  British  example 
is  the  further  fact,  that  this  clause  was  placed  in  our  Constitu- 
tion to  counterbalance  some  special  privileges  granted  to  the 
Senate.  It  was  the  compensating  weight  thrown  into  the  scale 
to  make  the  two  branches  of  Congress  equal  in  authority  and 
power.  It  was  first  put  into  the  Constitution  to  compensate  the 
large  States  for  the  advantages  given  to  the  small  .States  in  al- 
lowing them  an  equal  representation  in  the  Senate ;  and  when, 
subsequently,  it  was  thrown  out  of  the  original  draft,  it  came 
near  unhinging  the  whole  plan.  It  was  reinserted  in  the  last 
great  compromise  of  the  Constitution,  to  offset  the  exclusive 


696       RIGHT  TO  ORIGIN  A  TE  RE  VENUE  BILLS. 

right  of  the  Senate  to  ratify  treaties,  confirm  appointments,  and 
try  impeachments. 

Fourth.  The  construction  given  to  it  by  the  members  of  the 
Constitutional  Convention  is  the  same  which  this  House  now 
contends  for.  The  same  construction  was  asserted  broadly  and 
fuliy  by  the  First  Congress,  many  of  the  members  of  which  were 
framers  of  the  Constitution.  It  has  been  asserted  again  and 
again,  in  the  various  Congresses,  from  the  first  till  now;  and 
though  the  Senate  has  often  attempted  to  invade  this  privilege 
of  the  House,  yet  in  no  instance  has  the  House  surrendered  its 
right  whenever  that  right  has  been  openly  challenged;  and 
finally,  whenever  a  contest  has  arisen,  many  leading  Senatois 
have  sustained  the  right  of  the  House  as  now  contended  for. 

The  whole  history  of  the  subject  leads  to  the  inevitable  con* 
elusion  that  this  clause  of  the  Constitution  confers  absolutely 
and  exclusively  upon  the  House  the  right  to  originate  all 
measures  for  the  imposition,  regulation,  increase,  diminution,  or 
repeal  of  taxes.  This  is  the  proper  meaning  of  the  clause  itself, 
and  legislative  interpretation  has  confirmed  it.  Though  the 
language  of  the  clause  does  not,  strictly  construed,  include  ap- 
propriations, yet  the  invari.ible  custom  of  Congress  has  con- 
strued the  exclusive  right  of  the  House  to  originate  money  bills 
as  applying  to  all  bills  for  the  appropriation  of  public  moneys 
to  carry  on  the  government 

In  the  light  of  this  history,  it  is  easy  to  determine  the  merits 
of  the  question  of  diiTerence  now  pending  between  the  two 
Houses.  For  the  sake  of  argument,  let  us  suppose  that  the 
Senate  may  constitutionally  do  what  that  body  now  claims  the 
right  to  do,  that  is,  to  originate  a  bill  for  the  reduction  or  repeal 
of  any  existing  taxes.  If  such  a  bill  be  once  rightfully  Intro- 
duced into  the  Senate  for  consideration,  by  what  known  law 
or  rule  can  Senators  be  precluded  from  offering  any  germane 
amendment?  What,  then,  prevents  the  Senate  from  so  amend- 
ing a  bill  that  in  its  final  shape  it  may  provide  for  increasing  the 
tax?  If  it  be  said  that  the  amendment  would  put  the  bill  in  a 
shape  where  the  Senate  would  not  have  a  right  to  pass  it,  I 
answer  that  an  amendment  germane  to  the  subject-matter  of  the 
bill,  made  in  accordance  with  the  rules  of  the  Senate,  cannot  be 
unconstitutional.  The  unconstitutionality  must  consist  in  per- 
mitting the  introduction  of  a  bill  which  makes  such  a  result  pos- 
sible under  the  rules  of  the  Senate. 


1 


I 


RIGHT  TO  ORIGINATE  REVENUE  BILLS.       697 

Let  us  trace  more  closely  the  steps  by  which  a  bill  to  impose 
taxes  becomes  a  law. 

First,  the  House  has  the  exclusive  right  to  originate  it,  and 
the  Senate  can  never  act  on  such  a  bill  until  it  has  first  passed 
the  House.  Then,  the  Senate  is  fully  empowered  by  the  Con- 
stitution to  reject  the  bill,  to  amend  it,  or  to  pass  it  without 
amendment.  In  short,  a  bill  thus  sent  to  the  Senate  is  in  the 
full  possession  of  that  body  for  all  legislative  purposes.  Now, 
when  both  houses  have  thus  exercised  their  constitutional  rights, 
and  the  bill  has  become  a  law,  it  is  claimed  that  the  Senate  may 
originate  any  bill  which  can  be  founded  on  a  repeal  of  any 
clause  of  the  law  just  passed,  provided  that  clause  imposes  a 
tax.  The  result  of  this  reasoning  would  be  that,  after  the  first 
bill  imposing  taxes  upon  the  people,  and  establishing  a  general 
revenue  system  had  become  a  law,  the  exclusive  right  of  the 
House  to  originate  such  bills  practically  ceased,  and  the  clause 
of  the  Constitution  conferring  the  right  became  functus  officio  ; 
for  the  Senate,  under  the  cover  of  reducing  or  repealing  the 
whole  or  some  part  of  the  taxation  embraced  in  that  first  law, 
might  introduce  any  bill  thereafter  covering  the  whole  subject. 
Even  Senators  must  admit  that,  before  the  first  revenue  law 
passed  under  the  Constitution,  the  Senate  could  not  have  origi- 
nated any  revenue  bill  whatever.  They  must  therefore  hold 
that  the  passage  of  a  revenue  law  conferred  upon  the  Senate  a 
constitutional  right  which  they  did  not  before  possess.  The 
construction  insisted  upon  by  the  Senate  leads  to  this  inevi- 
table result,  and  makes  the  clause  under  consideration  a  tem- 
porary provision,  which,  being  once  fully  used,  ceases  to  be  any 
longer  a  living  part  of  the  Constitution. 

On  the  contrary,  the  House  insists  that  this  clause  of  the 
Constitution  was  intended,  like  the  corresponding  part  of  the 
British  constitution,  to  be  a  perpetual  safeguard  to  the  people. 
It  was  intended  to  hold  forever  the  power  of  initiative  in  the 
grasp  of  the  House,  which  directly  represents  the  people,  and 
whose  members  every  two  years  surrender  to  the  tax-payers  of 
the  nation  all  their  legislative  powers,  and  to  exclude  from  the 
right  of  initiative  that  body  which  is  not  chosen  by  the  people, 
but  by  State  legislatures,  which  pay  no  national  taxes,  and 
bear  no  national  burdens.  The  House  of  Representatives  alone 
has  a  Committee  of  Ways  and  Means;  the  Senate  committee  is 
known  by  another  name,  —  Committee  on  Finance.     It  is  here. 


6g8       RIGHT  TO  ORIGINATE  REVENUE  BILLS. 

and  here  only,  that  plans  may  be  inaugurated  to  provide  ways 
and  means  for  tlie  support  of  the  government. 

Again,  if  the  Senate  may  throw  their  whole  weight,  political 
and  moral,  into  the  scale  in  favor  of  the  repeal  or  reduction  of 
one  class  of  taxes,  they  may  thereby  compel  the  House  to 
originate  bills  to  impose  new  taxes,  or  increase  old  ones  to 
make  up  the  deficiency  caused  by  the  repeal  begun  in  the  Sea- 
ate,  and  thus  accomplish  by  indirection  what  the  Constitution 
plainly  prohibits. 

What  Mr.  Seward  said  in  1856  of  the  encroachments  of  the 
Senate  is  still  more  strikingly  true  to-day.  The  tendency  of] 
the  Senate  is  constantly  to  encroach,  not  only  upon  the  Juris- 
diction of  the  House,  but  upon  the  rights  of  the  Chief  Execu- 
tive of  the  nation.  The  power  of  confirming  appointments  is 
rapidly  becoming  a  means  by  which  the  Senate  dictates  ap- 
pointments. The  Constitution  gives  to  the  President  the  ini- 
tiative in  appointments,  as  it  gives  to  the  House  the  initiative 
in  revenue  legislation.  Evidences  are  not  wanting  that  both 
these  rights  are  every  year  subjected  to  new  invasions.  If.  in 
the  past,  the  Executive  has  been  compelled  to  give  way  to  the 
pressure,  and  has  in  some  degree  yielded  lii^  coii.^titutional 
rights,  it  is  all  the  more  necessary  that  this  House  stand  firm, 
and  yield  no  jot  or  tittle  of  that  great  right  intrusted  to  us  for 
the  protection  of  the  people. 


1 
I 


At  the  second  session  of  the  Forty-second  Congress  the  questi<Mi  of 
originating  revenue  bills  came  up  in  a  new  form.  This  is  shown  by  the 
following  resolution,  adopted  by  the  House,  April  a,  187a,  on  the  mo* 
tion  of  Mr.  Dawes,  of  Massachusetts  ;  — 

"  Resolved,  That  the  substitution  by  the  Senate,  under  the  form  of  an 
amendment,  for  the  bill  of  the  House,  entitled  '  An  Act  to  repeal  exist- 
ing Duties  on  Tea  and  Coffee,'  of  a  bill  entitled  '  An  Act  to  decrease  ex- 
isting Taxes,'  containing  a  general  revision,  reduction,  and  repeal  of  laws  - 
imposing  impost  duties  and  internal  taxes,  is  in  conflict  with  the  true 
intent  and  purpose  of  that  clause  of  the  Constitution  which  requires 
that '  all  bills  for  raising  revenue  shall  originate  in  the  House  of  Repre- 
sentatives ' ;  and  that  therefore  said  substitute  for  the  House  bill  do  lie 
upon  the  table." 

Mr.  Garfield  made  a  brief  speech  on  the  respective  rights  of  the  two 
houses,  but  only  his  remarks  on  the  new  question  are  here  given. 


RIGHT  TO  ORIGINATE  REVENUE  BILLS.       699 

Mr  Speaker,  —  The  case  now  before  us  is  new  and  difficult. 
I  think  the  same  point  has  never  before  come  into  controversy. 
It  raises  the  question  how  far  the  Senate  may  go  in  asserting 
their  right  to  "  propose  or  concur  with  amendments,  as  on  other 
bills." 

We  must  not  construe  our  rights  so  as  to  destroy  theirs,  and 
we  must  take  care  they  do  not  so  construe  their  rights  as  to 
destroy  ours.  If  their  right  to  amendment  is  unlimited,  then 
our  right  amounts  to  nothing  whatever.  It  is  the  merest  mock- 
ery to  assert  any  right.  What,  then,  is  the  reasonable  limit  to 
this  right  of  amendment?  It  is  clear  to  my  mind  that  the  Sen- 
ate's power  to  amend  is  limited  to  the  subject-matter  of  the  bill. 
That  limit  is  natural,  is  definite,  and  can  be  clearly  shown.  If 
there  had  been  no  precedent  in  the  case,  I  should  say  that  a 
House  bill  relating  solely  to  revenue  on  salt  could  not  be 
amended  by  adding  to  it  clauses  raising  revenue  on  textile  fab- 
rics, but  that  all  the  amendments  of  the  Senate  should  relate 
to  the  duty  on  salt.  To  admit  that  the  Senate  can  take  a  House 
bill  consisting  of  two  lines,  relating  specifically  and  solely  to  a 
single  article,  and  can  graft  upon  that  bill  in  the  name  of  an 
amendment  a  whole  system  of  tariff  and  internal  taxation,  is  to 
say  that  they  may  exploit  all  the  meaning  out  of  the  clause  of 
the  Constitution  which  we  are  considering,  and  may  rob  the 
House  of  the  last  vestige  of  its  rights  under  that  clause.  I  am 
sure  that  this  House,  remembering  the  precedents  which  have 
been  set  from  the  First  Congress  until  now,  will  not  permit  this 
right  to  be  invaded  on  such  a  technicality. 

Now  I  will  not  say,  for  I  believe  it  cannot  be  held,  that  the 
mere  length  of  an  amendment  shall  be  any  proof  of  invasion  of 
the  privileges  of  the  House.  True,  we  sent  to  the  Senate  a  bill 
of  three  or  four  lines,  and  they  have  sent  back  a  bill  of  twenty 
printed  pages.  I  do  not  deny  their  right  to  send  back  a  bill  of 
a  thousand  pages  as  an  amendment  to  our  two  lines ;  but  I  do 
insist  that  their  thousand  pages  must  be  on  the  subject-matter 
of  our  bill.  It  is  not  the  number  of  lines,  nor  is  it  —  I  now 
respond  to  my  friend  from  Maine,^  who  asked  me  a  question — 
nor  is  it  the  amount  of  revenue  raised  or  reduced,  of  which 
we  have  a  right  to  complain.  We  may  pass  a  bill  to  raise 
$1,000,000  from  tea  or  coffee;  the  Senate  may  move  so  to 
amend  it  as  to  raise  $100,000,000  from  tea  and  coffee,  if  such 

»  Mr   Peters. 


700       RIGHT  TO  ORIGINATE  REVENUE  BILLS. 

a  thing  was  possible ;  or  they  may  so  amend  it  as  to  make  it  j 
but  one  dollar  from  tea  and  coRce ;  or  they  may  reject  the  biH  J 
altogether. 

Mr.  Pefers,     May  not  the  Senate  add  other  articles  ? 

If  wc  refer  to  the  practice  of  the  two  houses,  doubtless  the  j 
Senate  has  usually,  witliout  any  question  having  been  raised  by  ' 
the  House,  added  other  articles.  And  I  do  not  say  that  this 
would  be  trenching  on  our  privileges  on  a  general  revenue  bill. 
But  the  bill  on  which  these  amendments  were  made  was  in  no  I 
sense  a  general  revenue  bill.  It  was  an  act  relating  exclusively 
to  a  single  article.  There  was  nothing,  either  in  the  title  oi 
the  bill  itself,  to  indicate  that  it  was  intended  as  a  genera!  reve- 
nue bill.  Furthermore,  it  was  well  known  that  the  proper  ci 
mittee  of  the  House  were  preparing  a  general  bill,  in  which  the 
whole  subject  was  to  be  opened  for  consideration.  Considering 
all  the  circumstances  of  the  case,  and  particularly  the  fact  that 
on  the  single  clause  of  our  bill  relating  to  but  one  article  of 
taxation  the  Senate  has  ingrafted  a  general  bill,  embracing  not 
only  the  tariff  generally,  but  our  whole  system  of  internal  tax- 
ation, it  is  clear  that  the  ground  we  now  take  is  not  question- 
able ground,  and  it  becomes  the  undoubted  duty  of  the  House 
to  stand  on  its  rights,  and  refuse  to  consider  this  bill. 

Mr.  Peters.  Then  allow  me  to  ask  the  genUeman  if  the  rule  is  a 
fixed  one,  or  one  in  the  discretion  of  the  House. 

I  will  say  this:  it  is  a  fixed  rule.  If  the  House  has  ever 
slept  on  its  rights  it  ought  not  to  be  now  concluded  from  as- 
serting them  because  of  its  past  neglect ;  and  if  there  ever  was  a 
time  in  the  history  of  the  government  when  this  House  should 
reclaim  and  assert  its  rights,  it  is  now  and  here,  when,  on  the 
naked  lay  figure  of  a  two-line  bill,  the  Senate  proposes  to  im- 
pose the  entire  revenue  system  of  the  government.  If  the  bill 
from  the  Senate  now  on  your  table,  Mr.  Speaker,  be  recognized 
by  us,  we  shall  have  surrendered  absolutely,  not  only  the  letter, 
but  the  spirit  of  the  rule  hitherto  adopted,  and  with  it  our  ex- 
clusive privilege  under  the  Constitution. 

If  it  be  said  that  this  resolution,  which  the  House  is  asked 
to  adopt,  is  an  unusual  one,  I  answer  that  the  circumstances 
under  which  it  is  proposed  are  equally  unusual.  It  is  well 
known  that  the  Senate,  even  in  the  recess,  have  been  delib- 


RIGHT  TO  ORIGINATE  REVENUE  BILLS,        701 

erately  at  work  preparing  the  tariff  bill ;  and  they  have  only 
been  waiting  the  slight  opportunity  afforded  by  the  two  lines 
which  the  House  sent  them,  to  initiate  and  take  control  of  our 
tariff  legislation.  It  is  this  course  of  procedure  which  the  House 
is  called  upon  to  resist. 


SPEECH   DEUVERED    IN   THE    HOUSE  OF   REPRESENTATIVES, 
Ann.  4,  I 


The  FoHrteenth  Amendment  had  no  sooner  become  a  part  of  the 
Constitution,  than  Congress  began  to  legislate  with  a  view  of  carrying 
out  its  provisions.  Attention  may  be  rtrawn  to  the  "  Act  to  enforce  the 
Right  of  Citizens  of  the  United  States  to  vote  in  the  several  States  of 
the  Union,  and  for  other  Purposes,"  approved  May  31,  1870;  also  to 
the  Act  amendatory  of  said  Act,  approved  February  28,  1871. 

March  23,  1871,  President  Grant  sent  to  the  Senate  and  House  of 
RcpicscnCotivcs  tjiis  mcMagc  :  — 

"A  condition  of  affairs  now  exists  in  some  States  of  the  Union,  ren- 
dering life  and  property  insecure,  and  the  carrying  of  the  mails  and  the 
collection  of  the  revenue  dangerous.  The  proof  that  such  a  condition 
of  affairs  exists  in  some  localities  is  now  before  the  Senate.  That  the 
power  to  cdrrect  these  evils  is  beyond  the  control  of  the  State  authori- 
ties, I  do  not  doubt ;  that  the  power  of  the  Executive  of  the  United 
States,  acting  within  the  limits  of  existing  laws,  is  sufficient  for  present 
emergencies,  is  not  clear.  Therefore,  I  urgently  recommend  such  legis- 
lation as  in  the  judgment  of  Congress  shall  effectually  secure  life,  liberty, 
and  property,  and  the  enforcement  of  law,  in  all  parts  of  the  United 
States,  It  may  be  expedient  to  provide  that  such  law  as  shall  be  passed 
in  pursuance  of  this  recommendation  shall  expire  at  the  end  of  the  next 
session  of  Congress." 

This  message  was  referred  in  flie  House  to  a  select  committee  of  niiw. 
March  38,  Mr.  Samuel  Shellabarger,  of  Ohio,  reported  from  this  commit- 
tee a  "  Bill  to  enforce  the  Provisions  of  the  Fourteenth  Amendment  to 
the  Constitution  of  the  United  States,  and  for  other  Purposes,"  This  bill 
led  to  an  extended  discussion,  in  both  houses,  of  outrages  in  the  South, 
the  final  issue  of  which  was  the  law  popularly  known  as  "  The  Ku- 
Klux  Act,"  approved  April  20.  Mr,  Garfield's  speech  was  upon  the  bOl 
as  reported  by  Mr,  Shellabarger,  His  criticisms,  and  those  of  other 
Republican  members  who  shared  his  general  views,  led  to  very  i 


THE  KU-KLUX  ACT.  703 

modifications  of  the  bill,  Mr.  Shellabarger  himself  leading  the  way  by 
offering  an  important  amendment  the  day  after  Mr.  Garfield's  si>eech 
was  delivered.  To  follow  all  the  crooks  and  turns  in  the  history  of 
the  Ku-Klux  Act,  would  here  be  both  impossible  and  out  of  place.  A 
summary  of  leading  points,  and  the  test  votes,  will  be  found  in  McPher- 
son's  "Handbook  of  Politics,"  for  1872,  pp.  85-91.  It  is  particularly 
deserving  of  mention,  however,  that  the  martial-law  features  of  the  origi- 
nal bill,  so  severely  criticised  by  Mr.  Garfield,  were  struck  out 


"  AH  persons  bom  or  naturalized  in  the  United  States,  and  subject  to  the  jurisdiction  thereof, 
are  citizens  of  the  United  States  and  of  the  Stats  wherein  they  reside.  No  State  shall  make 
or  enforce  any  law  which  shall  abridge  the  privileges  or  immunities  of  citizens  of  the  United 
States ;  nor  shall  any  State  deprive  any  person  of  life,  liberty,  or  property  without  due  pro- 
cess of  law,  nor  deny  to  any  person  within  its  jxirisdiction  the  equal  protection  of  the  laws." — 
Constitution^  Art  XIV.  Sec  i. 

MR.  SPEAKER,  —  I  am  not  able  to  understand  the  mental 
organization  of  the  man  who  can  consider  this  bill,  and 
the  subject  of  which  it  treats,  as  free  from  very  great  difficulties. 
He  must  be  a  man  of  very  moderate  abilities,  whose  ignorance 
is  bliss,  or  a  man  of  transcendent  genius,  whom  no  difficulties 
can  daunt  and  whose  clear  vision  no  cloud  can  obscure. 

The  distinguished  gentleman  ^  who  introduced  the  bill  from 
the  committee  very  appropriately  said  that  it  requires  us  to 
enter  upon  unexplored  territory.  That  territory,  Mr.  Speaker, 
is  the  neutral  ground  of  all  political  philosophy,  —  the  neutral 
ground  for  which  rival  theories  have  been  struggling  in  all 
ages.  There  are  two*  ideas  so  utterly  antagonistic  that  when,  in 
any  nation,  either  has  gained  absolute  and  complete  possession 
of  that  neutral  ground,  the  ruin  of  that  nation  has  invariably  fol- 
lowed. The  one  is  that  despotism  which  swallows  and  absorbs 
all  power  in  a  single  central  government;  the  other  is  that 
extreme  doctrine  of  local  sovereignty  which  makes  nationality 
impossible,  and  resolves  a  general  government  into  anarchy  and 
chaos.  It  makes  but  little  difference  as  to  the  final  result  which 
of  these  ideas  drives  the  other  from  the  field ;  in  either  case, 
ruin  follows.  The  result  exhibited  by  the  one  was  seen  in  the 
United  Netherlands,  which  Madison,  in  the  Federalist,*  de- 
scribes as  characterized  by  "imbecility  in  the  government;  dis- 
cord among  the  provinces ;  foreign  influence  and  indignities ;  a 

^  Mr.  Shellabarger.  *  No.  2a 


■-''«■?  I^'"* 


704  THE  KU^KLUX  ACT. 


W 


precarious  existence  in  peace^  and  pectiliar  calamities  fixtfn  war< 
This  is  a  fitting  description  of  all  nations  who  have  carried  liic 
doctrine  of  local  self-government  so  far  as  to  exclude  the  doe* 
trine  of  nationality.  They  were  not  nations,  But  mere  lei^^oes 
bound  together  by  common  consent,  ready  to  &U  to  pieces 
at  the  demand  of  any  refractory  member.  The  opposing  idea 
was  never  better  illustrated  than  when  Louis  XIV.  entered  die 
French  Assembly,  booted  and  spurred,  and  girded  with  tte 
sword  of  ancestral  kings,  and  said  to  the  deputies  of  France» 
^ The  state?    I  am  the  state !  " 

Between  these  opposite  and  extreme  theories  of  govemmeitt^ 
the  people  have  been  tossed  from  century  to  century ;  and  it 
has  been  only  when  these  ideas  have  been  in  reasonable  equi- 
poise,  when  this  neutral  ground  has  be^i'held  in  joint  occo* 
pancy,  and  usurped  by  neither,  that  popuhur  lib^ty  and  natiofial 
life  have  been  possible.  How  many  striking  iUustrattoaA  of 
this  do  we  see  in  the  history  of  France  I  The  despotism  of 
Louis  XIV.  followed  by  a  reign  of  terror,  whoi  liberty  bad 
run  mad  and  France  was  a  vast  scene  of  blood  and  ruin  I 
We  see  it  again  in  our  day.  Only  a  few  years  ago  the  theory 
of  personal  government  had  placed  in  the  hands  of  Napo- 
leon III.  absolute  and  irresponsible  power.  The  communes 
of  France  were  crushed,  and  local  liberty  existed  no  longer. 
Then  followed  Sedan  and  the  rest.  On  the  first  day  of  last 
month,  when  France  was  trying  to  rebuild  her  ruined  gov- 
ernment, when  the  Prussian  cannon  had  scarcely  ceased  thun- 
dering against  the  walls  of  Paris,  a  deputy  of  France  rose  in 
the  National  Assembly  and  moved,  as  the  first  step  toward 
the  safety  of  his  country,  that  a  committee  of  thirty  should 
be  chosen,  to  be  called  the  Committee  of  Decentralization. 
But  it  was  too  late  to  save  France  from  the  fearful  reaction 
from  despotism.  The  news  comes  to  us,  under  the  sea,  that 
on  Saturday  last  the  cry  was  ringing  through  France,  **  Death 
to  the  priests,  and  death  to  the  rich !  "  and  the  swords  of  the 
citizens  of  that  new  republic  are  now  wet  with  each  other's 
blood. 

The  records  of  time  show  no  nobler  or  wiser  work  done 
by  human  hands  than  that  of  our  fathers  when  they  framed 
this  republic.  Beginning  in  a  wilderness  world,  they  wrought 
unfettered  by  precedent,  untrammelled  by  custom,  unawed  by 
kings  or  dynasties.     With  the  history  of  other  nations  before 


THE  KU-KLUX  ACT.  705 

them,  they  surveyed  the  new  field.  In  the  progress  of  their 
work  they  encountered  these  antagonistic  ideas  which  I  have 
stated.  They  attempted  to  trace  through  that  neutral  ground 
a  boundary  line  across  which  neither  force  should  pass.  The 
result  of  their  labors  is  our  Constitution  and  frame  of  gov- 
ernment. I  never  contemplate  the  result  without  feeling  that 
there  was  more  than  mortal  wisdom  in  the  men  who  produced 
it  It  has  seemed  to  me  that  they  borrowed  their  thought 
from  Him  who  constructed  the  universe  and  put  it  in  motion. 
For  nothing  more  aptly  describes  the  character  of  our  re- 
public than  the  solar  system,  launched  into  space  by  the  hand 
of  the  Creator,  where  the  central  sun  is  the  great  power  around 
which  revolve  all  the  planets  in  their  appointed  orbits.  But 
while  the  sun  holds  in  the  grasp  of  its  attractive  power  the 
whole  system,  and  imparts  its  light  and  heat  to  all,  yet  each 
individual  planet  is  under  the  sway  of  laws  peculiar  to  itself 

Under  the  sway  of  terrestrial  laws,  winds  blow,  waters  flow, 
and  all  the  tenantries  of  the  planet  live  and  move.  So,  sir, 
the  States  move  on  in  their  orbits  of  duty  and  obedience, 
bound  to  the  central  government  by  this  Constitution,  which 
is  their  supreme  law;  while  each  State  is  making  laws  and 
regulations  of  its  own,  developing  its  own  energies,  maintaining 
its  own  industries,  managing  its  local  affairs  in  its  own  way, 
subject  only  to  the  supreme  but  beneficent  control  of  the 
Union.  When  State  rights  run  mad.  put  on  the  form  of  Seces- 
sion, and  attempted  to  drag  the  States  out  of  the  Union,  we 
saw  the  grand  lesson  taught,  in  all  the  battles  of  the  late  war, 
that  a  State  could  no  more  be  hurled  from  the  Union  with- 
out ruin  to  the  nation,  than  could  a  planet  be  thrown  from 
its  orbit  without  reducing  to  chaos  the  whole  solar  universe. 

Sir,  the  great  war  for  the  Union  has  vindicated  the  centrip- 
etal power  of  the  nation,  and  has  exploded,  forever  I  trust, 
the  disorganizing  theory  of  State  sovereignty  which  slavery 
attempted  to  impose  upon  this  country.  But  we  should  never 
forget  that  there  is  danger  in  the  opposite  direction.  The 
destruction  or  serious  crippling  of  the  principle  of  local  gov- 
ernment would  be  as  fatal  to  liberty  as  secession  would  have 
been  fatal   to   the  Union. 

The  first  experiment  in  government-making  which  our  fathers 

tried  after  the  War  of  Independence  was  a  failure,  because  the 

central  power  created   by  the  Articles  of  Confederation  was 
VOL.  I.  45 


706  THE  KU-KLUX  ACT. 

not  strong  enough.  The  second,  though  nobly  conceived,  be- 
came almost  a  failure  because  slavery  attempted  so  to  inter- 
pret the  Constitution  as  to  reduce  the  nation  again  to  a  con- 
federacy, a  mere  league  between  sovereign  States.  But  now 
that  we  have  vindicated  and  secured  the  centripetal  power,  let 
us  see  that  the  centrifugal  force  is  not  destroyed,  but  that  the 
grand  and  beautiful  equipoise  is  maintained. 

No  more  beautiful  thought  was  embodied  in  the  structure  of 
our  republic  than  this,  —  that  our  fathers  did  so  distribute  the 
powers  of  government  that  no  one  power  should  be  able  to 
swallow,  absorb,  or  destroy  the  others.  In  this  distribution  it 
is  provided  that  many,  indeed  most,  of  the  functions  of  govern- 
ment shall  be  exercised  immediately  under  the  eyes  of  the 
people  themselves.  Let  me  illustrate  this  by  the  system  of 
taxation  in  my  own  State.  I  have  here  a  statement  of  the  tax- 
ation of  the  State  of  Ohio  for  the  last  year.  There  was  raised 
in  1870,  under  State  laws,  nearly  twenty-four  millions  of  dollars. 
Less  than  five  millions  of  the  twenty-four  found  its  way  to  the 
State  treasury  at  Columbus.  Less  than  four  millions,  indeed, 
was  used  for  central  purposes.  Nineteen  of  the  twenty-four 
millions  was  levied  within  the  townships  and  the  counties,  under 
the  direction  of  township  trustees  and  city  and  county  officers; 
and,  in  accordance  with  the  general  laws  of  the  State,  these 
sums  were  expended  at  home,  under  the  direction  of  the  very 
men  who  specially  consented  that  the  tax  should  be  levied. 
Twelve  and  a  half  miUions  was  raised  and  expended  in  the 
townships.  Mr.  Speaker,  although,  as  in  Ohio,  more  than  half 
of  all  the  taxes  raised  are  kept  in  the  treasuries  of  the  town- 
ships, how  often  have  you  heard  of  embezzlement  or  defalcation 
by  township  officers?  Where  in  the  nation  is  there  so  wise  and 
so  honest  an  administration  of  afiairs  as  in  the  townships,  under 
the  eye  of  the  people  who  have  approved  the  levy,  and  who 
watch  the  expenditure  of  the  money?  We  have  sometimes 
heard  of  defalcations  of  county  treasurers,  because  they  live 
some  distance  away  from  the  Argus  eyes  which  watch  over 
their  proceedings.  We  have  oftener  heard  of  State  defalcations, 
because  State  officers  are  still  further  away.  And  oftener  still 
we  hear  of  national  defalcations,  where  the  power  is  exercised 
still  further  away  from  the  people  who  grant  it.  I  mention  this 
as  an  illustration  of  the  character  of  our  government. 

The  illustration  might  be  extended  with  equal  force  to  the 


THE  KU-KLUX  ACT.  707 

» 

administration  of  justice  in  townships  and  counties,  where 
offences  against  persons  and  property  are  tried  before  judges 
of  the  people's  own  choosing,  and  before  jurors  who  are  the 
neighbors  of  the  parties,  who  can  administer  justice  far  better 
than  is  possible  at  distant  and  remote  points,  where  both  court 
and  jury  are  strangers  to  the  litigants. 

But  I  turn  from  these  general  remarks  to  the  consideration  of 
those  features  of  our  Constitution  which  relate  more  immedi- 
ately to  the  subject  of  the  bill  now  before  the  House. 

I  presume  it  will  not  be  denied  that,  before  the  adoption 
of  the  last  three  amendments,  it  was  the  settled  interpretation 
of  the  Constitution  that  the  protection  of  the  life  and  property  of 
private  citizens  within  the  States  belonged  to  the  State  govern- 
ments exclusively.  I  will,  however,  fortify  this  position  by  a 
few  authorities  which  will  not  be  questioned.  Mr.  Madison 
says,  in  the  Federalist :  "  The  powers  reserved  to  the  several 
States  will  extend  to  all  the  objects  which,  in  the  ordinary 
course  of  affairs,  concern  the  lives,  liberties,  and  properties  of 
the  people,  and  the  internal  order,  improvement,  and  prosperity 
of  the  State."  ^ 

In  the  celebrated  case  of  Cohens  ik  Virginia,^  the  Supreme 
Court  takes  the  same  ground;  and  Mr.  Justice  Story,  in  his 
Commentaries  on  the  Constitution,  quotes  with  approval  the 
following  passage  from  the  opinion  of  that  court:  "Congress 
has  a  right  to  punish  murder  in  a  fort,  or  other  place  within 
its  exclusive  jurisdiction,  but  no  general  right  to  punish  murder 
committed  within  any  of  the  States."  ^ 

In  February,  1866,  while  debating  a  proposed  amendment  to 
the  Constitution,  which  in  its  final  form  became  the  fourteenth 
article,  my  colleague,  Mr.  Bingham,  quoted  the  passage  from 
the  Federalist  which   I   have  already  quoted,  and  then   said: 

"The  words  of  Madison  cited  are  very  significant The 

fact  is,  that  Congress  has  never  by  penal  enactment,  in  all  the 
past,  attempted  to  enforce  these  rights  of  the  people  in  any 
State  of  the  Union."*  In  the  same  debate  he  also  said:  "We 
have  not  the  power,  in  time  of  peace,  to  enforce  the  citizen's 
rights  to  life,  liberty,  and  property  within  the  limits  of  South 
Carolina,  after  her  State  government  shall  be  recognized,  and 
her  constitutional  relations  restored."  * 

1  No.  45.  ^  6  Wheaton.  424.  •  Section  1 231. 

*  Congressional  Globe,  February  28, 1866,  p.  1093.  »  Ibid.,  p.  1090. 


7o8  THE  KU-KLUX  ACT. 

On  the  9th  of  March,  1866,  when  the  Civil  Rights  Bill  was 
under  debate,  he  also  said :  "  The  Constitution  does  not  dele- 
gate to  the  United  States  the  power  to  punish  offences  against 
the  life,  liberty,  or  property  of  the  citizen  in  the  States ;  nor  does 
it  prohibit  that  power  to  the  States,  but  leaves  it  as  the  reserved 
power  of  the  States,  to  be  by  them  exercised."  ^  And  again,  in 
the  same  speech :  "  I  have  always  believed  that  the  protection 
in  time  of  peace  within  the  States  of  all  the  rights  of  person  and 
citizen  was  of  the  powers  reserved  to  the  States.  And  so  I  still 
believe."  ^ 

While  the  first  section  of  the  Civil  Rights  Bill  was  under  de- 
bate, my  colleague,  Mr.  Shellabarger,  said:  **  If  this  section  did 
in  fact  assume  to  confer,  or  define,  or  regulate  these  civil  rights, 
which  are  named  by  the  words  contract^  sue^  testify,  inherit^  &c, 
then  it  would,  as  it  seems  to  me,  be  an  assumption  of  the  re- 
served rights  of  the  States  and  the  people The  bill  does 

not  reach  mere  private  wrongs,  but  only  those  done  under  color 
of  State  authority;  and  that  authority  must  be  extended  on 
account  of  the  race  or  color.  It  is  meant,  therefore,  not  to  usurp 
the  powers  of  the  States  to  punish  offences  generally  against 
the  rights  of  citizens  in  the  several  States,  but  its  whole  force  is 
expended  in  defeating  an  attempt,  under  State  laws,  to  deprive 
races  and  the  members  thereof,  as  such,  of  the  rights  enumer- 
ated in  this  act.     This  is  the  whole  of  it."^ 

In  the  same  debate,  Mr.  Delano,  of  Ohio,  now  Secretary  of 
the  Interior,  speaking  of  the  Constitution,  said :  "  It  was  never 
designed  to  take  away  from  the  States  the  right  of  controlling 
their  own  citizens  in  respect  to  property,  liberty,  and  life.  If 
we  now  go  on  in  a  system  of  legislation  based  upon  the  assump- 
tion that  Congress  possesses  the  right  of  supreme  control  in 
this  respect,  I  submit  whether  we  are  not  assisting  to  build  up 
a  consolidated  government,  in  view  of  the  powers  of  which  we 
may  well  tremble."  * 

Authorities  might  be  cited  to  a  much  greater  length.  They 
all  concur  in  the  statement  with  which  I  set  out,  that  the  power 
to  protect  the  life  and  property  of  private  citizens  within  the 
States  was  left  by  the  Constitution  exclusively  to  the  State 
governments. 

^  Congressional  Globe,  March  9,  1S66,  p.  1 291. 

2  Ibid.,  p.  1293.  8  Ibid.,  p.  1294. 

*  Congressional  Globe,  Appendix  to  ist  Session  of  39th  Congress,  p.  158. 


THE  KU-KLUX  ACT.  709 

Now,  three  Amendments,  the  Thirteenth,  Fourteenth,  and 
Fifteenth,  have  been  added  to  the  Constitution,  and  it  will  not  be 
denied  that  each  of  these  amendments  has  so  modified  the  Con- 
stitution as  to  change  the  relation  of  Congress  to  the  citizens  of 
the  States.  They  have  to  some  extent  enlarged  the  functions 
of  Congress,  and,  within  prescribed  limits,  have  extended  within 
the  States  its  jurisdiction.  I  now  inquire  how  far  this  jurisdic- 
tion has  been  extended. 

The  Thirteenth  Amendment  provides  that  slavery  shall  never 
exist  within  the  United  States,  or  any  place  subject  to  their 
jurisdiction ;  and  Congress  is  empowered  to  enforce  this  provis- 
ion on  every  inch  of  soil  covered  by  our  flag.  Congress  may 
by  its  legislation  prevent  any  person  from  being  made  a  slave 
by  any  law,  usage,  or  custom,  or  by  any  act  direct  or  indirect. 
This,  I  presume,  will  not  be  denied ;  and  Congress  has  effect- 
ually carried  out  this  provision. 

The  Fifteenth  Amendment,  the  last  of  the  three,  says  the 
rights  of  citizens  of  the  United  States  to  vote  shall  not  be 
denied  or  abridged,  either  by  the  United  States  or  by  any  State, 
in  consequence  of  race,  color,  or  previous  condition  of  servitude. 
And  that,  taken  in  connection  with  the  clause  in  the  main  text 
of  the  Constitution,  which  authorizes  Congress  to  regulate  the 
time,  place,  and  manner  of  holding  elections,  arms  Congress 
with  the  full  power  to  protect  the  ballot-box  at  all  elections,  at 
least  of  officers  of  the  United  States,  and  to  protect  the  right 
of  all  men  to  the  suffrage  within  the  limit  of  that  clause.  On 
this  point,  I  presume,  there  will  be  no  difference  of  opinion, 
at  least  on  this  side  of  the  House.  In  pursuance  of  this  power 
we  passed  the  act  of  May  31,  1870,  and  the  amendatory  act 
of  February  28,  1871. 

I  now  come  to  consider,  for  it  is  the  basis  of  the  pending  bill, 
the  Fourteenth  Amendment.  I  ask  the  attention  of  the  House 
to  the  first  section  of  that  amendment,  as  to  its  scope  and  mean- 
ing. I  hope  gentlemen  will  bear  in  mind  that  this  debate,  in 
which  so  many  have  taken  part,  will  become  historical,  as  the 
earliest  legislative  construction  given  to  this  clause  of  the 
amendment.  Not  only  the  words  which  we  put  into  the  law, 
bift  what  shall  be  said  here  in  the  way  of  defining  and  interpret- 
ing the  meaning  of  the  clause,  may  go  far  to  settle  its  interpre- 
tation and  its  value  to  the  country  hereafter.  No  thorough 
discussion  of  this  clause  is  possible  which  does  not  include  a 


^p  ■•:. 


fto  roB  rv^xLux  agt. 

hbtoiy  of  some  of  Uie  leading  facts  cmmected  #ith  ftfr  w^ 
and  its  adoption  by  Cdagress.  I  iriU  diefefere  stite  bri^y  tte 
proceedings  of  this  House  on  the  first  >foitn  of  amendaoMl 
proposed  on  the  subject  embcaeed  in  the  first  secti<Mi  of  tte 
Fourteenth  Amendment,  as  it  now  stands  in  the  Constitution.- 

On  the  13th  of  February,  t8€6,  Mr.  Kngham  reported,  fifott 
the  C<Mnmittee  on  Reoonstructiosi,  a  j<Httt  resolution  prc^KN^ 
tng  tiie  following  am^idment  to  the  Constitution  of  die  Unildd 
States :  **  Article  -^.  The  Congress  shall^ave  powm'  to  mate 
ail  laws  which  shall  be  necessary  and  proper  to  secure  to  die 
citizens  of  each  State  all  pri^eges  and  ioununities  of  citisens 
in  the  several  States ;  and  to  all  persons  in  the  severe  &atas 
equal  protection  in  the  rights  of  life,  liberty^  and  pmperty."  ^ 

The  debate  proceeded  at  great  length,*  and  the  necessity 'fbr 
increased  protection  against  the  hostile  l^^ation  <A  the  StsMi 
to  those  who  had  lately  been  slaves  was  strongly  uigod.  I  will 
quote  a  iew  paragraphs  fcom  the  debate,  to  show  some  of  die 
leading  reasons  that  were  urged  for  and  j^rainst  the  propositiMNL 

Mr.  Higby,  of  California,  insisted  that  this  amendment  wsis 
necessary  in  order  to  protect  the  lives  and  property  of  citi- 
zens in  the  South.  He  showed  how,  under  the  Thirteenth 
Amendment,  the  laws  of  the  States  might  be  so  administered 
as  to  put  black  men  into  slavery  under  pretence  of  sentencing 
them  for  crime ;  and  that  without  additional  power  given  to 
Congress,  the  general  government  could  not  prevent  such  a 
result.^  Others  urged  the  amendment  on  the  same  and  similar 
grounds. 

Mr.  Hale,  of  New  York,  opposed  the  amendment.  He  said 
that  under  it  *'  all  State  legislation,  in  its  codes  of  civil  and 
criminal  jurisprudence  and  procedure  affecting  the  individual 
citizen,  may  be  overriden,  may  be  repealed  or  abolished,  and 
the  law  of  Congress  established  instead.  I  maintain,"  he  said, 
**  that  in  this  respect  it  is  an  utter  departure  from  every  princi- 
ple ever  dreamed  of  by  the  men  who  framed  our  Constitution."  * 

On  the  28th  of  February,  my  colleague,  Mr.  Bingham,  made 
a  very  able  and  elaborate  speech  in  defence  of  the  amendment. 
He  based  its  necessity  on  the  fact  that  Congress  had  then  no 
power  to  legislate  for  life,  liberty,  and  property  within  t)ie 
States.     He  affirmed,  also,  that  the  guaranties  of  the  rights  of 

*  Congressional  Globe,  Feb.  13,  1866,  p.  813.  *  Ibid.,  Feb.  27,  p.  1056. 

•  Ibid,  Feb.  27,  p.  1063. 


THE  KU-KLUX  ACT.  711 

property  and  person  named  in  the  fifth  article  of  the  Amend- 
ments to  the  Constitution  were  not  limitations  on  the  State 
governments,  but  only  on  Congress.  To  support  this  position 
he  quoted  the  case  of  Barron  v.  The  Mayor  and  City  Coun- 
cil of  Baltimore ;  ^  also,  Lessee  of  Livingston  v  Moore  and 
others ;  ^  he  also  quoted  a  passage  from  Daniel  Webster ;  ^  and 
then  said :  **  The  question  is  simply  whether  you  will  give,  by 
this  amendment,  to  the  people  of  the  United  States  the  power, 
by  legislative  enactment,  to  punish  officials  of  States  for  viola- 
tion of  the  oaths  enjoined  upon  them  by  their  constitution."  * 

In  the  course  of  Mr.  Bingham's  speech.  Judge  Hale,  of  New 
York,  asked  him  "  whether,  in  his  opinion,  this  proposed  amend- 
ment to  the  Constitution  does  not  confer  upon  Congress  a 
general  power  of  legislation  for  the  purpose  of  securing  to  all 
persons  in  the  several  States  protection  of  life,  liberty,  and 
property,  subject  only  to  the  qualification  that  that  protection 
shall  be  equal."  To  which  Mr.  Bingham  replied :  "  I  believe  it 
does  in  regard  to  life,  and  liberty,  and  property,  as  I  have 
heretofore  stated  it;  the  right  to  real  estate  being  dependent 
on  the  State  law  except  when  granted  by  the  United  States." 
Mr.  Hale  said  further,  **  I  desire  to  know  if  he  means  to  imply 
that  it  extends  to  personal  estate?"  And  Mr.  Bingham  replied, 
"  Undoubtedly  it  is  true."  ^ 

Mr,  Conkling,  now  a  Senator  from  the  State  of  New  York, 
during  the  same  debate  said  of  this  amendment :  "  It  was  intro- 
duced several  weeks  ago,  and  considered  in  the  committee  of 
fifteen.  At  that  time  and  always  I  felt  constrained  to  withhold 
from  it  my  support  as  one  of  the  conlmittee,  and  when  the  con- 
sent of  the  committee  was  given  to  its  being  reported,  I  did  not 
concur  in  the  report."  ^ 

Mr.  Hotchkiss,  of  New  York,  said :  **  I  understand  the  amend- 
ment, as  now  proposed,  by  its  terms  to  authorize  Congress  to 
establish  uniform  laws  throughout  the  United  States  upon  the 
subject  named,  the  protection  of  life,  liberty,  and  property.  I 
am  unwilling  that  Congress  shall  have  any  such  power."  ^ 

I  have  been  thus  particular  in  reviewing  the  history  of  this 
debate,  in  order  to  show  the  sentiment  that  then  prevailed  in 
this  House  in  regard  to  one  of  the  theories  which  we  are  now 
asked  to  adopt. 

*  7  Peters,  247.  «  7  Peters,  469.  •  Works,  Vol.  III.  p.  471. 

*  Congressional  Globe,  Feb.  28,  p.  1090.  *  Ibid.,  p.  X094. 

*  Ibid.,  p.  1094.  T  Ibid.,  p.  1095. 


I-    ^ 


7M  2ZEB 

Now;  let  it  be  remembaed  that  ibc  ptopOB^  woamAmtiAW9li 
a  plain*  unambiguotts  propositioa  to  cmpoiwer  Conip^eiHi  W 
legislate  directly  upon  the  citicens  of  all  the  States  in  regftild  W 
their  rights  of  Ufe,  liberty»  and  properQr.  Mark  the  action  of 
the  House.  After  a  debate  of  two  weeksi  the  record  of  whidi 
covers  more  than  one  hundred  and  fifty  coltunns  of  tiie  43ldb^ 
and  in  which  the  proposed  amendment  was  subjected  to  « i&Mt 
searching  examination,  it  became  evident  that  many  tending 
Republicans  of  this  House  would  not  consent  to  so  tadicat  a 
change  in  the  Constitutiony  and  the  bill  was  recommitted  to 
the  joint  select  committee. 

IdbLBmoBAM.  TThe  gentleman  is  niistd[en.  A  motion  was  made  tb 
ky  Ifaat  amendmoit  on  die  table.  There  were  41  voles  in  fimw  oiF  ifat 
motion  and  no  against  it  I  voted  myself  in  £nror  of  a  pnstponcBieafcf 
bat  die  measure  was  not  recommitted,  fisr  I  was  a  member  of  di# 
ccHnmittee  and  knew  what  it  could  da 

My  colleague  is  technically  right  in  saying  that  the  measnie 
was  postponed.  Of  course  the  majority  (fid  not  allow  it  to  bfS 
laid  on  the  table  on  the  motion  of  a  member  of  the  ttpposSHi 
party,  and  the  motion  was  voted  down,  as  my  coHes^e  has 
said.  But  the  consideration  of  the  measure  was  postponed  on 
motion  of  Mr.  Conkling,  who  had  opposed  it  from  the  start; 
and  it  did  in  fact  go  back  to  the  committee,  and  was  never 
again  discussed  in  this  House.  What  is  more,  it  was  never 
debated  at  all  in  the  Senate,  though  it  was  introduced  into  that 
body  by  Mr.  Fessenden  on  the  same  day  that  Mr.  Bingham 
introduced  it  into  the  House.  The  whole  history  of  the  case 
shows  that  it  became  perfectly  evident,  both  to  the  members 
of  the  Senate  and  of  the  House,  after  the  House  debate,  that 
the  measure  could  not  command  a  two-thirds  vote  of  Congress, 
and  for  that  reason  the  proposition  was  virtually  withdrawn. 
Its  consideration  was  postponed,  February  28,  by  a  vote  of 
no  to  37. 

More  than  a  month  passed  after  this  postponement,  or  re- 
committal, without  further  action  in  either  House.  On  the 
30th  of  April,  1866,  the  Fourteenth  Amendment  was  introduced 
into  this  House,  and  the  first  section  was  precisely  as  it  now 
stands  in  the  Constitution,  except  that  the  first  sentence  of 
the  present  text  was  not  in  the  draft.  The  new  form  of 
amendment  was  also  debated  at  great  length.  The  gentleman 
who  reported  it  from  the  committee,  the  late  Mr.  Stevens,  of 


THE  KU-KLUX  ACT.  713 

Pennsylvania,  said  that  it  came  far  short  of  what  he  wished, 
but  after  full  consideration  he  believed  it  the  most  that  could 
be  obtained. 

Mr.  Bingham.  My  coUeag^je  will  allow  me  to  correct  him  again. 
The  remark  of  Mr.  Stevens  had  no  relation  whatever  to  that  pro\dsion, 
none  at  all.     That  is  all  I  have  to  say  on  that  point  now. 

My  colleague  can  make,  but  he  cannot  unmake  history.  I 
not  only  heard  the  whole  debate  at  the  time,  but  I  have  lately 
read  over,  with  scrupulous  care,  every  word  of  it  as  recorded 
in  the  Globe.  I  will  show  my  colleague  that  Mr.  Stevens  did 
speak  specially  of  this  very  section. 

The  debate  on  this  new  proposition,  which  afterward  became 
the  Fourteenth  Amendment,  was  opened  by  Mr.  Stevens,  May 
8th,  in  a  characteristic  and  powerful  speech.  He  spoke  of  the 
difficulties  which  the  joint  committee  on  reconstruction  had 
encountered,  and  of  the  long  struggle  they  had  had  to  reach 
any  proposition  on  which  the  friends  of  the  amendment  could 
unite.     He  said :  — 

"  This  proposition  is  not  all  that  the  committee  desired.  It  falls  far 
short  of  my  wishes,  but  it  fulfils  my  hopes.     I  believe  it  is  all  that  can 

be  obtained  in  the   present  state  of  public  opinion The  first 

section  prohibits  the  States  from  abridging  the  privileges  and  immu- 
nities of  citizens  of  the  United  States,  or  unlawfully  depriving  them  of 
life, '  liberty,  or  property,  or  of  denying  to  any  person  within  their 
jurisdiction  the  *  equal '  protection  of  the  laws. 

"I  can  hardly  believe  that  any  person  can  be  found  who  will  not 
admit  that  every  one  of  these  provisions  is  just.  They  are  all  asserted, 
in  some  form  or  other,  in  our  Declaration  or  organic  law.  But  the 
Constitution  limits  only  the  action  of  Congress,  and  is  not  a  limitation 
on  the  States.  This  amendment  supplies  that  defect,  and  allows  Con- 
gress to  correct  the  unjust  legislation  of  the  States,  so  far  that  the  law 
which  operates  upon  one  man  shall  operate  equally  upon  all.  What- 
ever law  punishes  a  white  man  for  a  crime  shall  punish  the  black  man 
precisely  in  the  same  way  and  to  the  same  degree.  Whatever  law 
protects  the  white  man  shall  afford  equal  protection  to  the  black  man. 
Whatever  means  of  redress  is  afforded  to  one  shall  be  afforded  to  all. 
Whatever  law  allows  the  white  man  to  testify  in  court  shall  allow  the 
man  of  color  to  do  the  same.  These  are  great  advantages  over  their 
present  codes.  Now  different  degrees  of  punishment  are  inflicted,  not 
on  account  of  the  magnitude  of  the  crime,  but  according  to  the  color 
of  the  skin.  Now  color  disqualifies  a  man  from  testifying  in  courts  or 
being  tried  in  the  same  way  as  white  men.    I  need  not  enumerate  these 


714  THE  KU-KLUX  ACT. 

partial  and  oppressive  laws.    Unless  the  Constitulion  should  rcsm 
theui,  thoiu  S'.atcs  will  all,  I  fear,  keep  up  this  discrinuiiation,  and  c 
to  death  the  haled  freedmeo."  ' 

In    the    long   debate    which   followed,    this    section    of 
amendment  was  considered  as  equivalent  to  the  first  sectita 
of  the  Civil  Rights  Bill,  except   that  a  new  power  was  addCj! 
in  the  clause  which  prohibits  any  State   from   depriving 
person  witliin  its  jurisdiction  of  the  equal  protection   of  thefl 
laws.     The  interpretation  of  this  first  section,  as  given  by  MrJ 
Stevens,  was   the   one   followed   by  almost  every   KcpublicaBj 
who  spoke  on  the  measure.     It  was  throughout  the  debate 
with  scarcely  an  exception,  spoken  of  as  a  limitation  of  the 
power  of  the  States  to  legislate  unequally  for  the  protection  a 
life  and  property. 

On  the  gth  of  May,  Mr.  Eliot,  of  Massachusetts,  said: 
support  the  first  section  because  the  doctrine  it  declares  i 
right,  and  if,  under  the  Constitution  as  it  now  stands,  Con-J 
gress  has  not  the  power  to  prohibit  State  legislation  discrimijiT 
nating  against  classes  of  citizens,  or  depriving  any  persons  { 
life,  liberty,  or  property  without  due  process  of  law,  or  denying 
to  any  persons  within  the  State  the  equal  protection  of  the 
laws,  then,  in  my  judgment,  such  power  should  be  distinctly 
conferred."  ^ 

Mr.  Farnsworth  approved  the  amendment,  but  said  that  ,the 
first  section  might  as  well  be  reduced  to  the  words,  "  No  State 
shall  deny  to  any  person  within  its  jurisdiction  the  equal  pro- 
tection of  the  laws,"  for  that  was  the  only  provision  in  it  which 
was  not  already  in  the  Constitution.' 

It  is  noticeable,  also,  that  no  member  of  the  Republican  party 
made  any  objection  to  this  section  on  the  grounds  on  which  so 
many  had  opposed  the  former  resolution  of  amendment;  but 
many  expressed  their  regret  that  the  article  was  not  sufhciently 
strong. 

Mr.  Shanklin,  of  Kentucky,  a  Democrat,  said,  "The  first 
section  of  this  proposed  amendment  to  the  Constitution  is  to 
strike  down  those  State  rights,  and  invest  all  power  in  the  gen- 
eral government."*  Mr.  Rogers,  of  New  Jersey,  a  Democrat, 
took  similar  ground.^ 

'  Congressional   Globe,  May  8,  1866,  p.  1459.         •  Ibid.,  May  9,  1866.  p.  ajock 
'  Ibii,  May  9,  1S66,  p.  2511.  •  Ibid,  p  3538. 

*  Ibid.,  Wxj  10, 18661  p.  3S39. 


THE  KU'-KLUX  ACT.  715 

These  two  are  the  only  declarations  that  I  find  in  the  House 
debates,  either  by  Democrats  or  Republicans,  indicating  that 
this  clause  was  regarded  as  placing  the  protection  of  the  fun- 
damental rights  of  life  and  property  directly  in  the  control  of 
Congress ;  and  the  declarations  of  Shanklin  and  Rogers  were 
general  and  sweeping  charges,  not  sustained  even  by  specific 
statement 

I  close  this  citation  of  speeches  on  the  amendment  by  quoting 
the  view  taken  of  the  scope  and  meaning  of  this  first  section 
by  my  colleague,  Mr.  Bingham.  He  said  this  section  gives 
power  "  to  protect  by  national  law  the  privileges  and  immuni- 
ties of  all  the  citizens  of  the  republic,  and  the  inborn  rights  of 
every  person  within  its  jurisdiction,  whenever  the  same  shall  be 
abridged  or  denied  by  unconstitutional  acts  of  any  State.  Allow 
me,  Mr.  Speaker,  in  passing,  to  say  that  this  amendment  takes 
from  no  State  any  right  that  ever  pertained  to  it  No  State 
ever  had  the  right,  under  the  forms  of  law  or  otherwise,  to  deny 
to  any  freeman  the  equal  protection  of  the  laws,  or  to  abridge 
the  privileges  or  immunities  of  any  citizen  of  the  republic,  al- 
though many  of  them  have  assumed  and  exercised  the  power, 
and  that  without  remedy."  ^ 

After  a  debate  on  this  new  proposition,  which  lasted  several 
days  and  evenings,  the  amendment  passed  the  House,  May  10, 
1866,  by  a  vote  of  128  ayes  to  37  noes,  not  one  Republican 
voting  against  it  It  will  not  be  denied,  as  a  matter  of  history, 
that  this  second  form  of  amendment  received  many  Republican 
votes  that  the  first  form  could  not  have  received.  In  the  Sen- 
ate there  was  but  little  debate  on  the  first  section,  and  no  change 
was  made  in  it,  except  that  these  words  were  added  at  the 
beginning  of  the  section :  **  All  persons  born  or  naturalized  in 
the  United  States,  and  subject  to  the  jurisdiction  thereof,  are  citi- 
zens of  the  United  States  and  of  the  State  wherein  they  reside."  ^ 

Other  changes  were  made  by  the  Senate  in  other  sections  of 
the  amendment,  and  the  whole,  as  amended,  passed,  June  8,  by 
a  vote  of  33  to  II. 

On  the  13th  of  June  the  House  passed  the  article,  with  the 
Senate  amendments,  by  a  vote  of  120  to  32,  every  Republican 
present  voting  for  it 

With  this  review  of  the  history  of  the  clause  rejected  and  of 
the  clause  adopted  in  our  minds,  I  ask  gentlemen  to  consider 

^  Congressional  Globe,  May  10,  1866,  p.  2542.  '  Ibid.,  May  30,  1866,  p.  289a 


;itf  TBS  KV^ZVX  ACT. 

die  differeiice  between  the  two.  Putting  the  fifth  clause  of  the  ■ 
amendment  first,  snd,  to  make  the  comparison  closer,  omitting  : 
thedefinitionof  citizenship,  the  section  as  adopted  reads  thus:  , 
"  Hie  Cong;re3S  shall  have  power  to  cnrorce,  by  appropriate 
legislation,  die  provisions  of  this  article."  To  wit:  '-  No  State 
shall  make  or  enforce  any  lawwhich  shall  abridge  the  privileges 
or  immunities  of  citizens  of  the  United  States;  nor  shall  any 
State  deprive  any  person  of  life;  liberty,  or  property,  without 
due  process  of  law,  nor  deny  to  any  person  within  its  jurisdic- 
tion the  equal  protection  of  the  laws." 

And  this  is  the  rejected  clause:  " The  Coi^;ra8  shall  1im|« 
power  to  make  all  laws  which  dull  be  necessary  and  proper  W- 
secure  to  the  citizens  of  each  State  'all  prii^Iegek  and  Immoi^ 
ties  of  citizens'  in  the  several  States;  and  to  all  persotts  m  ttk, 
several  States  equal  protection  in  the  rif^ts  of  life,  ltt>erQr,  WIA 
property."    -  '  ■ 

^e  one  exerts  Its  force  directly  upon  the  &ates,  layidg  ■«•. 
strictions  and  limitations  upon  their  power,  and  enabUng  CML. 
gress  to  enforce  these  llmitadons.  The  other,  ^Sait  r^edilH 
proposition,  would  have  brought  the  power  of  Congress  to  beAr 
directly  upon  the  citizens,  and  contained  a  clear  grant  of  power 
to  Congress  to  legislate  directly  for  the  protection  of  life,  lib- 
erty, and  property  within  the  States.  The  first  limited,  but  did 
not  oust,  the  jurisdiction  of  the  State  over  these  subjects;  the 
second  gave  Congress  plenary  power  to  cover  the  whole  subject 
with  its  jurisdiction,  and,  as  it  seems  to  me,  to  the  exclusion  of 
the  State  authorities.  Unless  we  ignore  both  the  history  and 
the  language  of  these  clauses,  we  cannot,  by  any  reasonable  in- 
terpretation, give  to  the  section,  as  it  stands  in  the  Constitution, 
the  force  and  effect  of  the  rejected  clause. 

Mr.  Speaker,  I  now  inquire  to  what  extent  this  section  does 
enlarge  the  powers  of  Congress.  On  the  proper  answer  to  this 
inquiry  will  chiefly  rest  our  power  of  legislation  on  the  subject 
before  us.  The  first  sentence  of  the  section  defines  citizenship. 
It  declares  that  "  all  persons  born  and  naturalized  in  the  United 
States,  and  subject  to  the  jurisdiction  thereof,  are  citizens  of  the 
United  States  and  of  the  State  wherein  they  reside." 

On  the  threshold  of  the  section  we  find  a  conflict  of  opinion. 
In  his  very  able  speech,  my  colleague  •  has  given  us  his  inter- 
pretation of  this  first  sentence.     He  says :    "  The  United  States 


THE  KU'KLUX  ACT.  717 

added  to  its  Constitution  what  was  not  in  it  before;  because 
never  before  was  it  found  in  the  Constitution  in  express  words 
that  ail  people  in  this  country  were  citizens  of  the  United  States 
as  well  as  of  the  States.  This  was  added,  and  added  for  a  pur- 
pose  The  making  of  them  United  States  citizens,  and 

authorizing  Congress  by  appropriate  law  to  protect  that  citi- 
zenship, gave  Congress  power  to  legislate  directly  for  enforce- 
ment of  such  rights  as  are  fundamental  elements  of  citizenship. 
This,  sir,  is  the  foundation  idea  on  which  this  section  and  the 
whole  bill  rest  for  their  constitutional  warrant.  If  right,  it 
solves  every  possible  doubt  and  difficulty  in  every  part  of  this 
great  inquiry."^ 

Now,  Mr.  Speaker,  I  desire  to  call  attention  to  this  statement, 
that  in  putting  into  the  Constitution  a  definition  of  citizenship 
there  was  given  to  Congress  a  great  power  which  did  not  be- 
fore exist  in  the  Constitution.  Can  my  colleague  by  any  pos- 
sibility forget  that  provision  of  the  Constitution  which  declares 
that  **  no  person  shall  be  a  Representative  who  shall  not  have 
been  seven  years  "  —  what?  "A  citizen  of  the  United  States." 
Can  he  forget  that  other  clause,  which  declares  that  **  no  person 
shall  be  a  Senator  of  the  United  States  who  shall  not  have  been 
nine  years  a  citizen  of  the  United  States  "  ?  Can  he  forget  that 
in  the  first  section  of  the  second  article  it  is  declared  that  "  no 
person  except  a  natural-born  citizen,  or  a  citizen  of  the  United 
States  at  the  adoption  of  the  Constitution,  shall  be  eligible  to 
the  office  of  President"?  Were  there  no  citizens  of  the  United 
States  until  the  Fourteenth  Amendment  passed?  Was  my 
colleague  any  less  a  citizen  of  the  United  States  when  he  sat 
in  the  Thirty-ninth  Congress  than  he  is  to-day?  Sir,  the  citi- 
zens of  the  United  States  made  this  Constitution.  It  was  not 
the  Constitution  that  made  them  citizens^  The  people  who  or- 
dained and  established  the  Constitution  were  citizens  when  they 
made  that  instrument.  ^ 

I  know  my  colleague  limits  his  statement  by  saying  that  the 
Constitution  did  not  before  say,  "in  express  words,  that  all 
the  people  in  this  country  were  citizens  of  the  United  States  " ; 
but  I  ask  him  and  all  who  hear  me  whether  this  was  not  as 
true  before  the  adoption  of  the  Fourteenth  Amendment  as  it 
is  to-day.  The  only  doubt  I  ever  heard  expressed  on  this  point 
was  whether  slaves  became  citizens  of  the  United  States  by  the 

^  Congressional  Globe,  ist  Sess.  42d  Congress,  Appendix,  p.  69. 


was  wholly  ^H 
;ndmcnt      ^| 


■718  THE  KU~KLUK  ACT. 

act  of  emancipation.     If  they  did.  tlie  proposition  was 
true,  before  as  well  as  after  the  adoption  of  the  amend: 

I  hold  in  my  hand  Paschal's  annotated  edition  of  the  Consti- 
tution, four  pages  and  a  half  of  which  are  filled  with  references 
to  decisions  of  the  courts,  from  the  beginning  of  the  cenli;ry 
until  now,  declaring  in  the  plainest  terms  that  all  free  persons 
born  or  naturalized  in  the  United  States  arc  citizens  thcreot 
A  weak  attempt  was  made  in  the  Drcd  Scott  case  to  exclude 
free  colored  persons  from  the  rights  of  citizenship ;  but  that 
feature  of  the  opinion  was  in  opposition  to  the  main  body  of 
previous  precedenEs,  and  to  all  subsequent  decisions.  I  will 
quote  but  one  or  two  of  the  many  declarations  of  our  constitu- 
tional teachers.  Chancellor  Kent  says:  "Citizens,  under  our 
Constitution  and  laws,  mean  free  inhabitants,  born  within  the 

United  States,  or  naturalized  under  the  laws  of  Congress 

Jf  a  slave  born  in  the  United  States  be  manumitted,  or  otherwise, 
lawfully  discharged  from  bondage,  or  if  a  black  man  be  bom 
within  the  United  States,  and  born  free,  he  becomes  thencefor- 
ward a  citizen,  but  under  such  disabilities  as  the  laws  of  the 
States  respectively  may  deem  it  expedient  to  prescribe  to  free 
persons  of  color."  ' 

In  the  admirable  opinion  of  Attorney-General  Bates,  deliv- 
ered to  Secretary  Chase,  November  29,  1862,  this  whole  subject 
is  thoroughly  discussed.      He  says:    "The  Constitution  itself 

does  not  malce  the  citizens  (it  is.  In  fact,  made  by  them) 

Every  person  born  in  the  country  is,  at  the  moment  of  birth, 
prima  facie,  a  citizen."' 

We  have  recognized  this  piinciple  of  citizenship  in  all  our 
naturalization  laws.  We  transform  the  subjects  of  foreign  gov- 
ernments into  citizens  of  the  United  States  whenever  they  com- 
ply with  the  terms  of  our  naturalization  laws.  The  Civil  Rights 
Bill  broadly  and  fully  affirms  the  doctrine  for  which  I  am  here 
contending. 

I  remember  the  able  speech  of  my  colleague*  in  favor  of  the 
Civil  Rights  Bill,  in  the  spring  of  1866,  before  this  Fourteenth 
Amendment  had  been  adopted.  The  first  sentence  of  that  law  is 
in  these  words:  "Be  it  enacted,  etc..  That  all  persons  bom  in 
the  United  States,  and  not  subject  to  any  foreign  power,  ex- 
cluding Indians  not  taxed,  are  hereby  declared  to  be  citizens." 

1  Commetitiries,  Vol.  tl.  p.  301,  note  {edLiion  of  1S60).        '  Mr,  Shollabarger. 
*  McPherton's  History  of  the  Rebellion,  pp.  379,  38a 


I 


I 


THE  KU-KLUX  ACT.  71^ 

My  colleague  and  I  then  believed,  as  I  now  believe,  that  we  were 
fully  empowered  to  make  this  declaration  of  citizenship ;  and 
so  the  Republicans  in  this  House  and  in  the  Senate  believed. 

I  do  not  by  any  means  underrate  the  value  and  importance 
of  the  first  sentence  of  the  amendment.  It  set  at  rest  forever 
a  vexed  and  troublesome  question.  It  brushed  away  all  the 
legal  subtleties  and  absurdities  that  were  based  on  the  supposed 
difference  between  citizenship  of  the  United  States  and  citizen- 
ship of  the  States ;  and  by  declaring  that  every  person  born  on 
the  soil,  and  subject  to  the  jurisdiction  of  the  United  States,  is 
a  citizen  both  of  the  nation  and  of  the  State  wherein  he  resides ; 
it  lifted  into  undoubted  citizenship  those  who  had  been  slaves, 
and  thus  resolved  all  doubts  as  to  their  civil  condition.  It  is 
clear  to  my  mind  that  this  had  already  been  done  by  the  pro- 
visions of  the  Civil  Rights  Bill. 

It  was  held  by  Mr.  Justice  Swayne,  in  his  learned  opinion  on 
the  case  of  Rhodes  ik  The  United  States,^  that  the  Civil  Rights 
Bill  naturalized  all  negroes  born  in  this  country  who  had  been 
slaves,  made  them  citizens,  and  gave  them  all  the  rights,  privi- 
leges, and  immunities  to  which  white  men  were  entitled  under 
the  laws.  The  rights  of  the  white  citizens  were  made  the  stan- 
dard to  which  all  others  were  lifted.  But  neither  the  Civil 
Rights  Bill  nor  the  first  sentence  of  the  Fourteenth  Amend- 
ment added  to  the  rights  already  guaranteed  to  the  white  citi- 
zen by  the  Constitution. 

If  the  view  I  have  taken  of  citizenship  be  correct,  it  follows 
that  my  colleague  is  in  error  when  he  attempts  to  find  in  the 
first  sentence  of  this  first  section  of  the  Amendment  the  power 
to  protect,  by  Congressional  enactment,  all  the  fundamental 
rights  of  persons  and  property  within  the  States,  —  a  power 
which  had  theretofore,  without  question,  belonged  exclusively 
to  the  State  governments.  If  my  colleague's  reasoning  on  this 
point  be  valid,  I  do  not  see  how  he  can  stop  short  of  ousting 
completely  the  jurisdiction  of  the  States  over  these  subjects. 
He  makes  the  clause  go  to  the  full  extent  of  the  one  which  was 
rejected. 

I  shall  not  be  able  in  the  hour  assigned  me  to  discuss  with 
thoroughness  all  the  clauses  of  this  section,  but  I  will  notice 
them  briefly.  The  next  clause  is  this :  "  No  State  shall  make 
or  enforce  any  law  which  shall  abridge  the  privileges  or  immu- 

1  I  Abbott,  28. 


720  THE    KU-KL  UX  ACT. 

nities  of  the  citizens  of  the  United  States,"  The  substance  c 
this  provision  is  in  the  main  text  of  the  Constitution,  and  has 
again  and  again  been  interpreted  by  the  courts. 

Mr.  15ingh.a.\).  The  first  clause  in  the  first  section  of  the  fourteenUt 
article  of  amendment,  to  wil,  "  No  State  shall  make  or  enforce  any  law  1 
which  shall  abridge  the  privileges  or  immunities  of  citizens  of  tlie  United 
States,"  never  was  in  the  original  text  of  the  Constitution.  Tfie  original 
text  of  the  Constitution  reads,  that  the  citizens  of  each  State  shall 
be  entitled  to  the  privileges  and  immunities  of  citizens  of  ihe  several 
States  ;  which  were  always  interpreted,  even  by  Judge  Story,  from  whom 
the  gentleman  cited  in  the  outset,  to  mean  only  privileges  and  immuni- 
ties of  citizens  of  the  Stales,  not  of  the  United  Stales. 

I  have  made  no  statement  which  requires  this  criticism  of 
my  colleague.  It  is  true  that  the  main  text  of  the  Constitution 
which  he  quotes  speaks  of  State  citizenship;  but  as  all  persons, 
free-born  or  naturalized  were  citizens  of  the  United  Sutcs,  itj 
brings  us  to  the  same  result  as  though  national  citizenship  ha4t 
been  expressed  in  the  section  quoted.  Indeed,  the  Supreme' 
Court  declared,  fortj'  years  ago,  that  "a  citizen  of  the  United. 
States  residing  In  any  State  of  tlie  Union  is  a  citizen  of  that 
Sute."  ^ 

My  colleague,"  and  also  the  gentleman  from  Massachusetts,' 
have  given  a  breadth  of  interpretation  to  these  words  "  privi- 
leges and  immunities"  which,  in  my  judgment,  is  not  war- 
ranted, and  which  goes  far  beyond  the  intent  and  meaning  of 
those  who  framed  and  those  who  amended  the  Constitution. 
The  gentleman  from  Massachusetts  said  in  his  speech:  "Con- 
gress is  empowered  by  the  Fourteenth  Amendment  to  pass 
all  'appropriate  legislation'  to  secure  the  privileges  and  im- 
munities of  the  citizen.  Now,  what  is  comprehended  in  this 
term  'privileges  and  immunities'?  Most  clearly  it  compre- 
hends all  the  privileges  and  immunities  declared  to  belong  to 
the  citizen  by  the  Constitution  itself.  Most  clearly,  also,  it 
seems  to  me,  it  comprehends  those  privileges  and  immunities 
which  all  republican  writers  of  authority  agree  in  declaring 
fundamental  and  essential  to  citizenship."*  He  then  quotes 
from  Justice  Washington's  opinion  in  the  case  of  Corfield  v. 
Coryell "  a  statement  that  the  fundamental  rights  of  citizenship 
"  are  protection  by  the  government,  the  enjoyment  of  life  and 

I  Gassies  v.  Ballou,  6  Peters,  761.  *  Mr.  Sli«Uabarg«r.  '  Mr.  Hoar, 

*  CongreMional  Globe,  March  39, 1871,  p.  334.  *  4  WMhingioii,  371. 


I 


THE  KU-KLUX  ACT.  721 

liberty,  with  the  right  to  acquire  and  possess  property  of  every 
kind,  and  to  pursue  and  obtain  happiness  and  safety." 

Now,  sir,  if  this  is  to  be  the  construction  of  the  clause,  the 
conclusion  is  irresistible  that  Congress  may  assert  and  maintain 
original  jurisdiction  over  all  questions  affecting  the  rights  of 
the  person  and  property  of  all  private  citizens  within  a  State, 
and  the  State  government  may  legislate  upon  this  subject  only 
by  sufferance  of  Congress.  It  must  be  remembered  that  Justice 
Washington  was  interpreting  the  second  section  of  the  fourth 
article  of  the  Constitution,  and  that  neither  he  in  1820,  nor  any 
other  judge  before  or  since,  has  authorized  so  broad  a  con- 
struction of  the  power  of  Congress  as  that  proposed  by  the 
gentlemen  to  whom  I  refer. 

The  next  clause  of  the  section  under  debate  declares :  "  Nor 
shall  any  State  deprive  any  person  of  life,  liberty,  or  property, 
without  due  process  of  law."  This  is  copied  from  the  fifth 
article  of  amendments,  with  this  difference :  as  it  stands  in  the 
fifth  article  it  operates  only  as  a  restraint  upon  Congress,  while 
here  it  is  a  direct  restraint  upon  the  governments  of  the  States. 
The  addition  is  very  valuable.  It  realizes  the  full  force  and 
effect  of  the  clause  in  Magna  Charta  from  which  it  was  bor- 
rowed ;  and  there  is  now  no  power  in  either  the  State  or  the 
nation  to  deprive  any  person  of  those  great  fundamental  rights 
on  which  all  true  freedom  rests,  the  rights  of  life,  liberty,  and 
property,  except  by  due  process  of  law ;  that  is,  by  an  impar- 
tial trial  according  to  the  laws  of  the  land.  This  very  provision 
is  in  the  Constitution  of  every  State  in  the  Union ;  but  it  was 
most  wise  and  prudent  to  place  it  in  the  serene  firmament  of 
the  national  Constitution,  high  above  all  the  storms  and  tem- 
pests that  may  rage  in  any  State. 

Mr.  Speaker,  I  come  now  to  consider  the  last  clause  of  this 
first  section,  which  is,  as  I  believe,  the  chief  and  most  valuable 
addition  made  to  the  Constitution  in  the  section.  That  clause 
declares  that  no  State  shall  "deny  to  any  person  within  its 
jurisdiction  the  equal  protection  of  the  laws."  This  thought 
was  never  before  in  the  Constitution,  either  in  form  or  in 
substance.  It  was  neither  expressed  in  any  words  in  the  in- 
strument, nor  could  it  be  inferred  from  any  provision.  It  is  a 
broad  and  comprehensive  limitation  on  the  power  of  the  State 
governments,  and,  without  doubt.  Congress  is  empowered  to 
enforce  this  limitation  by  any  appropriate  legislation.     Taken 

VOL.  I.  46 


r 


722  THE  KU-KLUX  ACT. 

in  connection  with  the  other  clauses  of  this  section,  it  restrains 
the  States  from  making  or  enforcing  laws  which  are  not  oa 
their  face  and  In  their  provisioiis  of  equal  application  to  all  llie 
citizens  of  the  State.  It  is  not  required  that  the  laws  of  a  State 
shall  be  perfect.  They  may  be  unwise,  injudicious,  even  un- 
just; but  they  must  be  equal  in  their  provisions,  like  the  air 
of  heaven,  covering  all  and  resting  upon  all  with  equal  weight. 
The  laws  must  not  only  be  equal  on  their  face,  but  they  must 
be  so  administered  that  equal  protection  under  them  shall  not 
be  denied  to  any  class  of  citizens,  either  by  the  courts  or  the 
executive  officers  of  the  State,  It  may  be  pushing  the  mean- 
ing of  the  words  beyond  their  natural  limits,  but  I  think  the 
provision  that  the  States  shall  not  "  deny  the  equal  protection 
of  the  laws"  implies  that  they  shall  afford  equal  protection. 

Now,  Mr.  Speaker,  to  review  briefly  the  ground  travelled 
over,  the  changes  wrought  in  the  Constitution  by  the  last  three 
amendments  in  regard  to  the  individual  rights  of  citizens  are 
these:  that  no  person  within  the  United  States  shall  be  made 
a  slave;  that  no  citizen  shall  be  denied  the  right  of  suffrage 
because  of  his  color,  or  because  he  was  once  a  slave;  that  no 
State,  by  its  legislation  or  the  enforcement  thereof,  shall  abridge 
the  privileges  or  immunities  of  citizens  of  the  United  States; 
that  no  State  shall,  without  due  process  of  law,  disturb  the  life, 
liberty,  or  property  of  any  person  within  its  jurisdiction;  and, 
finally,  that  no  State  shall  deny  to  any  person  within  its  juris- 
diction the  equal  protection  of  the  laws.  Thanks  to  the  wis- 
dom and  patriotism  of  the  American  people,  these  great  and 
beneficent  provisions  are  now  imperishable  elements  of  the 
Constitution,  and  will,  I  trust,  remain  forever  among  the  irre- 
versible guaranties  of  liberty.  How  can  these  new  guaranties 
be  enforced? 

In  the  first  place,  it  is  within  the  power  of  Congress  to 
provide,  by  law,  that  cases  arising  under  the  provisions  of  these 
amendments  may  be  carried  up  on  appeal  from  the  State 
tribunals  to  the  courts  of  the  United  States,  where-  every  law, 
ordinance,  usage,  or  decree  of  any  State  in  conflict  with  these 
provisions  may  be  declared  unconstitutional  and  void.  This 
great  remedy  covers  nearly  all  the  ground  that  needs  to  be 
covered  in  time  of  peace;  and  this  ground  has  already  been 
covet«^,  to  a  great  extent,  by  the  legislation  of  Congress.  The 
Civil  Rlgtits  Act  of  1866,  as  re-enacted  by  the  law  of  May  31, 


THE  KU-KLUX  ACT.  723 

1870,  opens  the  courts  of  the  United  States  to  all  who  were 
lately  slaves,  and  to  all  classes  of  persons  who  by  any  State 
law  or  custom  are  denied  the  equal  rights  and  privileges  of 
white  men.  By  the  stringent  and  sweeping  Enforcement  Act 
of  May  31,  1870,  and  by  the  supplementary  act  of  February 
28,  1 871,  Congress  has  provided  the  amplest  protection  of  the 
ballot-box  and  of  the  right  of  voters  to  enjoy  the  suffrage  as 
guaranteed  to  them  in  the  main  text  of  the  Constitution  and  in 
the  Fifteenth  Amendment 

In  the  second  place,  it  is  undoubtedly  within  the  power  of 
Congress  to  provide  by  law  for  the  punishment  of  all  persons, 
official  or  private,  who  shall  invade  these  rights,  and  who  by 
violence;  threats,  or  intimidation  shall  deprive  any  citizen  of 
his  fullest  enjoyment.  This  is  a  part  of  that  general  power 
vested  in  Congress  to  punish  the  violators  of  its  laws.  Under 
this  head  I  had  supposed  that  the  Enforcement  Act  made 
ample  provision.     I  quote  the  sixth  section :  — 

"  And  be  it  further  enacted,  That  if  two  or  more  persons  shall  band 
or  conspire  together,  or  go  in  disguise  upon  the  public  highway,  or 
upon  the  premises  of  another,  with  intent  to.  violate  any  provision  of 
this  act,  or  to  injure,  oppress,  threaten,  or  intimidate  any  citizen  with 
intent  to  prevent  or  hinder  his  free  exercise  and  enjoyment  of  any  right 
or  privilege  granted  or  secured  to  him  by  the  Constitution  or  laws  of  the 
United  States,  or  because  of  his  having  exercised  the  same,  such  per- 
sons shall  be  held  guilty  of  felony,  and,  on  conviction  thereof,  shall  be 
fined  or  imprisoned,  or  both,  at  the  discretion  of  the  court,  the  fine  not 
to  exceed  ^5,000,  and  the  imprisonment  not  to  exceed  ten  years,  and 
shall,  moreover,  be  thereafter  ineligible  to,  and  disabled  from  holding, 
any  office  or  place  of  honor,  profit,  or  trust  created  by  the  Constitution 
or  laws  of  the  United  States." 

The  sixteenth  and  seventeenth  sections  add  still  further  safe- 
guards for  the  protection  of  the  people.  For  the  protection  of 
all  officers  of  the  United  States  in  the  discharge  of  their  duties, 
and  for  the  enforcement  of  all  the  laws  of  the  United  States, 
our  statutes  make  ample  provisions.  The  President  is  empow- 
ered to  use  all  the  land  and  naval  forces,  if  necessary,  to  execute 
these  laws  against  all  offenders. 

But,  sir,  the  President  has  informed  us  in  his  recent  message, 
that  in  some  portions  of  the  republic  wrongs  and  outrages  are 
now  being  perpetrated,  under  circumstances  which  lead  him  to 
doubt  his  power  to  suppress  them  by  means  of  existing  laws. 


;24  THE  KU-KLUX  ACT. 


That  new  situation  confronts  us.  I  deeply  regret  that  we 
not  able  to  explore  the  length,  breadth,  and  depth  of  this 
danger  before  we  undertook  to  provide  a  legislative  remedy. 
The  subject  is  so  obscured  by  passion  that  it  is  hardly  possible 
for  Congress,  with  the  materials  now  in  its  possession,  to  know 
the  truth  of  the  case,  to  understand  fully  the  causes  of  this  new 
trouble,  and  to  provide  wisely  and  intelligently  the  safest  and 
most  certain  remedy.  But  enough  is  known  to  demand  some 
action  on  our  part.  To  state  the  case  in  the  most  moderate 
terms,  it  appears  that  in  some  of  the  Southern  States  there  ex- 
ists a  wide-spread  secret  organization,  whose  members  are  bound 
together  by  solemn  oaths  to  prevent  certain  classes  of  citizens 
of  the  United  States  from  enjoying  these  new  rights  conferred 
upon  them  by  the  Constitution  and  laws;  that  they  arc  putting 
into  execution  their  design  of  preventing  such  citizens  from 
enjoying  the  free  right  of  the  ballot-box  and  other  privileges 
and  immunities  of  citizens,  and  from  enjoying  the  equal  pro- 
tection of  the  laws.  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have  no  doubt  of  the 
power  of  Congress  to  provide  for  meeting  this  new  danger,  and 
to  do  so  without  trenching  upon  the  great  and  beneficent 
powers  of  local  self-government  lodged  in  the  States  and  with 
the  people.  To  reach  this  result  is  the  demand  of  the  hour 
upon  the  statesmanship  of  this  country.  This  brings  me  to  the 
consideration  of  the  pending  bill. 

The  first  section  provides,  in  substance,  that  any  person  who, 
under  color  of  any  State  law,  ordinance,  or  custom,  shall  de- 
prive any  person  of  any  rights,  privileges,  or  immunities  se- 
cured by  the  Constitution,  shall  be  liable  to  an  action  at  law, 
or  other  proper  proceeding,  for  redress  in  the  several  District 
or  Circuit  Courts  of  the  United  States.  This  is  a  wise  and  salu- 
tary provision,  and  plainly  within  the  power  of  Congress. 

But  the  chief  complaint  is  not  that  the  laws  of  the  State  are 
unequal,  but  that  even  where  the  laws  are  just  and  equal  on 
their  face,  yet,  by  a  systematic  maladministration  of  them,  or 
by  a  neglect  or  refusal  to  enforce  their  provisions,  a  portion  of 
the  people  are  denied  equal  protection  under  them.  Whenever 
such  a  state  of  facts  is  clearly  made  out,  I  beheve  the  last 
clause  of  the  first  section  empowers  Congress  to  step  in  and 
provide  for  doing  justice  to  those  persons  who  are  thus  denied 
equal  protection.  Now  if  the  second  section  of  the  pending 
bill  can  be  so  amended  that  it  shall  clearly  define  this  offence, 


were 

new         I 


THE  KU-KLUX  ACT.  725 

as  I  have  described  it,  and  shall  employ  no  terms  which  assert 
the  power  of  Congress  to  take  jurisdiction  of  the  subject  until 
such  denial  be  clearly  made,  and  shall  not  in  any  way  assume 
original  jurisdiction  of  the  rights  of  private  persons  and  of 
property  within  the  States,  —  with  these  conditions  clearly 
expressed  in  the  section,  I  shall  give  it  my  hearty  support. 
These  limitations  will  not  impair  the  efficiency  of  the  section, 
but  will  remove  the  serious  objections  that  are  entertained  by 
many  gentlemen  to  the  section  as  it  now  stands. 

I  have  made  these  criticisms,  not  merely  for  the  purpose  of 
securing  such  an  amendment  to  the  section,  but  because  I  am 
unwilling  that  the  interpretation  of  the  constitutional  powers  of 
Congress  which  some  gentlemen  have  given  shall  stand  as  the 
uncontradicted  history  of  this  legislation.  Amendments  have 
been  prepared  which  will  remove  the  difficulties  to  which  I 
have  alluded ;  and  I  trust  that  my  colleague  ^  and  his  commit- 
tee will  themselves  accept  and  offer  these  amendments.  I  am 
sure  my  colleague  will  understand  that  I  share  all  his  anxiety 
for  the  passage  of  a  proper  bill.  It  is  against  a  dangerous  and 
unwarranted  interpretation  of  the  recent  amendments  to  the 
Constitution  that  I  feel  bound  to  enter  my  protest. 

Mr.  Shellabarger.  Mr.  Speaker,  I  know  that  my  colleague  is  as 
sincerely  convinced  in  regard  to  the  proposition  that  he  has  been 
contending  for  as  a  man  ever  was.  And  I  want,  therefore,  to  have  the 
benefit  of  his  candid  reply  to  a  suggestion  which  I  will  now  make,  and 
which  it  may  take  perhaps  a  minute  or  two  to  state. 

I  understand  that  the  effect  of  what  he  says  is,  that  as  the  first  section 
of  the  Fourteenth  Amendment  to  the  Constitution  is  a  negation  upon  the 
power  of  the  States,  and  that  as  the  fifth  section  of  that  amendment  only 
authorizes  Congress  to  enforce  the  provisions  thereof,  therefore  Congress 
has  no  power  by  direct  legislation  to  secure  the  privileges  and  immu- 
nities of  citizenship,  because  the  provision  in  each  section  is  in  the  form 
of  a  mere  negation.  Now  what  I  want  to  ask  his  attention  to  is  this. 
First,  he  will  recognize  that  by  virtue  of  citizenship  under  the  old 
Constitution  there  was  no  power  in  Congress  to  touch  the  question  of 
the  elective  franchise ;  that  was  referred  by  the  old  Constitution  to  the 
clause  which  said  that  electors  should  be  those  who  were  electors  for  the 
most  numerous  branch  of  the  State  legislature.  Now,  then,  the  Fifteenth 
Amendment  was  also  a  mere  negation  upon  the  powers  of  the  States 
and  of  the  United  States,  saying  that  no  State  nor  the  United  States 
shall  take  away  the  right  to  vote  on  account  of  color,  race,  &c.  That 
also  is  another  negation.    The  old  clause  in  the  Constitution  in  regard 

1  Mr.  Shellabarger. 


726  THE   KU-KLUX  ACT.  ^ 

to  elections  did  not  give  Congress  the  power  to  touch  the  question  u  1 
to  who  should  vote,  but  simply  gave  ihem  power  to  regulate  the  time,  j 
place,  and  manner  of  casting  the  vote  by  those  who  could  vote  under  | 
State  author) ly.  Now,  1  ask  my  colleague's  attention  to  this.  We  have  J 
passed  here  an  act  which  enforces  the  Fifteenth  Ameodmeni,  which  1 
amendment  was  a  mere  negation  also  upon  the  power  of  the  States,  It  J 
is  provided  in  the  first  section  of  that  act.  that  all  citizens  of  the  United  j 
States  shall  have  the  right  to  go  into  the  States  from  a  mere  negation,  to  ' 
say  who  shall  vole  at  township  and  otlier  elections.  Then,  under  the 
Fifteenth  Amendment,  he  goes  directly  to  the  citizen  and  pimishes  the 
man  who  deprives  aoy  one  of  the  right  to  vole,  which  he  gets  under 
federal  law,  and  in  contravention  of  the  consiiiutions  of  one  half  of  the 
Slates  in  the  Union,  as  my  learned  colleague  said  the  other  day.  I  pusb  I 
him  now,  and  demand  that  he  shall  push  hb  logic  lo  its  consequences. 

If  the  case  stands  in  all  respects  exactly  as  my  colleague  puts 
it,  he  might  drive  me  to  the  conclusion  that  some  of  tlie  pro- 
visions of  the  enforcement  act  are  unconstitutional;  but  I  do 
not  admit  either  the  premises  or  the  conclusions.  My  colleague 
very  well  remembers  that  many  distinguished  men  in  this  House  j 
and  in  the  Senate  claimed  that  the  right  of  suffrage  was  in  the  1 
old  Constitution  without  this  Fifteenth  Amendment, 

Mr.  Shellabarger.    And  many  denied  it 

It  makes  no  difference  who  denied  it;  the  fact  is,  that  it  has 
again  and  again  been  elaborately  argued  upon  this  floor  that 
the  clause  in  the  main  text  which  gives  to  Congress  the  power 
to  regulate  the  time,  place,  and  manner  of  holding  elections, 
carried  with  it  the  whole  question  of  suffrage.  I  was  never 
able  to  believe  that  this  clause  went  so  far;  but  I  did  believe, 
and  I  do  now  believe,  that  it  goes  so  far  that,  with  the  Fifteenth 
Amendment  superadded.  Congress  is  armed  with  more  than  a 
mere  negative  power,  and  had  the  right  to  pass  the  enforce- 
ment law  of  May  last. 

But  I  call  my  colleague's  attention  to  the  peculiar  language 
of  the  Fifteenth  Amendment.  It  is  not,  as  his  remarks  imply, 
a  mere  prohibition  to  the  State,  a  simple  negatioti  of  power. 
It  is  a  double  prohibition,  reaching,  in  terms,  both  the  State 
and  the  United  States.     This  is  the  language :  — 

"  Article  XV.  Sec,  i.  The  right  of  citizens  of  the  United  States  to 
vote  shall  not  he  denied  or  abridged  by  the  United  States,  or  by  any 
State,  on  account  of  race,  color,  or  previous  condition  of  servitude. 

"Sec.  a.  The  Congress  shall  have  power  to  enforce  this  aitide  bf 
^propriate  legislation." 


I 
I 


THE  KU-KLUX  ACT.  727 

This  double  prohibition  Congress  may  enforce. 

Now,  Mr.  Speaker,  I  call  the  attention  of  the  House  to  the 
third  section  of  the  bill.  I  am  not  clear  as  to  the  intention  of 
the  committee,  but,  if  I  understand  the  language  correctly,  this 
section  proposes  to  punish  citizens  of  the  United  States  for 
violating  State  laws.  If  this  be  the  meaning  of  the  provision, 
then  whenever  any  person  violates  a  State  law  the  United 
States  may  assume  jurisdiction  of  his  offence.  This  would 
virtually  abolish  the  administration  of  justice  under  State  law. 
In  so  far  as  this  section  punishes  persons  who  under  color  of 
any  State  law  shall  deny  or  refuse  to  others  the  equal  pro- 
tection of  the  laws,  I  give  it  my  cheerful  support ;  but  when 
we  provide  by  Congressional  enactment  to  punish  a  mere  viola- 
tion of  a  State  law,  we  pass  the  line  of  constitutional  authority. 

But,  Mr.  Speaker,  there  is  one  provision  in  the  fourth  section 
which  appears  to  me  both  unwise  and  unnecessary.  It  is  pro- 
posed, not  only  to  authorize  the  suspension  of  the  privilege 
of  the  writ  of  habeas  corpus^  but  to  authorize  the  declaration 
of  martial  law  in  the  disturbed  districts. 

I  do  not  deny,  but  I  affirm,  the  right  of  Congress  to  author- 
ize the  suspension  of  the  privilege  of  the  writ  of  habeas  corpus 
whenever  in  cases  of  rebellion  or  invasion  the  public  safety 
may  require  it.  Such  action  has  been  and  may  again  be 
necessary  to  the  safety  of  the  republic ;  but  I  call  the  attention 
of  the  House  to  the  fact,  that  never  but  once  in  the  history  of 
this  government  has  Congress  suspended  the  great  privilege  of 
that  writ,  and  then  it  was  not  done  until  two  years  of  war  had 
closed  all  the  ordinary  tribunals  of  justice  in  the  rebellious 
districts,  and  the  great  armies  of  the  Union,  extending  from 
Maryland  to  the  Mexican  line,  were  engaged  in  a  death  strug- 
gle with  the  armies  of  the  rebellion.  It  was  not  until  the  3d 
of  March,  1863,  that  the  Congress  of  the  United  States  found 
the  situation  so  full  of  peril  as  to  make  it  their  duty  to  suspend 
this  greatest  privilege  enjoyed  by  Anglo-Saxon  people.  Are 
we  ready  to  say  that  an  equal  peril  confronts  us  to-day? 

My  objection  to  authorizing  this  suspension  implies  no  dis- 
trust of  the  wisdom  or  patriotism  of  the  President.  I  do  not 
believe  he  would  employ  this  power  were  we  to  confer  it  upon 
him ;  and  if  he  did  employ  it,  I  do  not  doubt  he  would  use  it 
with  justice  and  wisdom.  But  what  we  do  on  this  occasion  will 
be  quoted  as  a  precedent  hereafter,  when  other  men  with  other 


728  THE  KU-KLUX  ACT.  ^H 

purposes  may  desire  to  confer  this  power  on  another  Fresidentil 
for  purposes  that  may  aot  aJd  in  securing  public  liberty  andfl 
public  peace.  I 

Again,  this  section  provides'  no  safeguard  for  citizens  whdj 
may  be  arrested  during  the  suspension  of  tlie  writ.  There  nfl 
no  limit  to  the  time  during  which  men  may  be  held  as  prisoor^ 
ers.  Nothing  in  the  section  requires  them  to  be  delivered  oveffl 
to  the  courts.  Nothing  in  it  gives  them  any  other  protectiona 
than  the  will  of  the  commander  who  orders  their  arrest.  Thfifl 
law  of  March  3,  1863,  provided  that,  whenever  the  privileges  ofil 
the  writ  were  suspended,  all  persons  arrested  other  tlian  prison-fl 
ers  of  war  should  be  brought  before  the  grand  jury  of  soraej 
District  or  Circuit  Court  of  the  United  States,  and  if  no  indict- a 
ment  should  be  found  against  them  they  must,  on  the  discharge* 
of  tlie  grand  jury,  be  immediately  discharged  from  arrest;  andl 
the  of^cer  who  should  detain  any  unindicted  person  beyond  tha^ 
limit  was  liable  to  fine  and  imprisonment.  The  law  of  March  3,  j 
1863,  was  a  temporary  act,  and  expired  with  the  rebellion.  It  1 
is  not  contained  in  Brightly's  Digest,  and  is  no  longer  in  force:! 
Should  the  writ  be  suspended,  I  shall  ask  the  House  to  re-l| 
enact  the  second  section  of  the  law  of  1863. 

But,  sir,  this  fourth  section  goes  a  hundred  bowshots  farther 
than  any  similar  legislation  of  Congress  in  the  wildest  days  of 
the  rebellion.  It  authorizes  the  declaration  of  martial  law. 
We  are  called  upon  to  provide  by  law  for  the  suspension  of  all 
law!  Do  gentlemen  remember  what  martial  law  is?  Refer  to 
the  digest  of  opinions  of  the  Judge  Advocate  General  of  the 
United  States,  and  you  will  find  a  terse  definition,  which  gleams 
like  the  flash  of  a  sword-blade.  The  Judge  Advocate  says, 
"  Martial  law  is  the  will  of  the  general  who  commands  the 
army."  And  Congress  is  here  asked  to  declare  martial  law! 
Why,  sir,  it  is  the  pride  and  boast  of  England  that  martial  law 
has  not  existed  in  that  country  since  the  Petition  of  Right  in 
the  thirty-first  year  of  Charles  II.  Three  years  ago  the  Lord 
Chief  Justice  of  England  came  down  from  the  high  court  over 
which  he  was  presiding,  to  review  the  charge  of  another  judge 
to  a  grand  jury;  and  he  there  announced  that  the  power  to 
declare  martial  law  no  longer  exists  in  England.  In  1867  the 
same  judge,  in  the  case  of  The  Queen  v.  Nelson,  uttered  the 
sentiment,  that  there  is  no  such  law  in  existence  as  martial  law, 
and  DO  power  in  the  crown  to  proclaim  it 


THE  KU'KLUX  ACT.  729 

In  a  recent  treatise  entitled  "  The  Nation,"  a  work  of  great 
power  and  research,  the  author,  Mr.  Mulford,  says:  — 

"The  declaration  of  martial  law,  or  the  suspension  of  the  habeas 
corpusy  is  the  intermission  of  the  ordinary  course  of  law,  and  of  the  tri- 
bunals to  which  all  appeal  may  be  made.  It  places  the  locality  included 
in  its  operations  no  longer  under  the  government  of  law.  It  interrupts 
the  process  of  rights,  and  the  procedure  of  courts,  and  restricts  the  inde- 
pendence of  civil  administration.  There  is  substituted  for  these  the 
intent  of  the  individual.  To  this  there  is  in  the  civil  order  no  formal 
limitation.  In  its  immediate  action,  it  allows  beyond  itself  no  obligation, 
and  acknowledges  no  responsibility.  Its  command  or  its  decree  is  the 
only  law ;  its  movement  may  be  secret,  and  its  decisions  are  open  to  the 
inquiry  of  no  judge  and  the  investigation  of  no  tribunal.  There  is  no 
positive  power  which  may  act,  or  be  called  upon  to  act,  to  stay  its  ca- 
price, or  to  check  its  arbitraiy  career,  since  judgment  and  execution  are 
in  its  own  command,  and  the  normal  action  and  administration  is  sus- 
pended, and  the  organized  force  of  the  whole  is  subordinate  to  it."  ^ 

The  Supreme  Court,  in  Ex  parte  Milligan,  examined  the 
doctrine  that  in  time  of  war  the  commander  of  an  armed  force 
has  power  within  the  lines  of  the  military  district  to  suspend  all 
civil  rights,  and  subject  citizens  as  well  as  soldiers  to  the  rule 
of  his  will.  Mr.  Justice  Davis,  who  delivered  the  opinion  of 
the  court,  said :  — 

"  If  this  position  is  sound  to  the  extent  claimed,  then  when  war  exists, 
foreign  or  domestic,  and  the  country  is  subdivided  into  military  depart- 
ments for  mere  convenience,  the  commander  of  one  of  them  can,  if  he 
chooses,  within  his  limits,  on  the  plea  of  necessity,  with  the  approval  of 
the  Executive,  substitute  military  force  for  and  to  the  exclusion  of  the 
laws,  and  punish  all  persons  as  he  thinks  right  and  proper,  without  fixed 
or  certain  rules. 

"  The  statement  of  this  proposition  shows  its  importance ;  for,  if  true, 
republican  government  is  a  failure,  and  there  is  an  end  of  liberty  regu- 
lated by  law.  Martial  law  established  on  such  a  basis  destroys  every 
guaranty  of  the  Constitution,  and  effectually  renders  the  '  military  inde- 
pendent of  and  superior  to  the  civil  power ' ;  the  attempt  to  do  which 
by  the  king  of  Great  Britain  was  deemed  by  our  fathers  such  an  offence 
that  they  assigned  it  to  the  world  as  one  of  the  causes  which  impelled 
them  to  declare  their  independence.  Civil  liberty  and  this  kind  of  martial 
law  cannot  endure  together ;  the  antagonism  is  irreconcilable ;  and,  in  the 
conflict,  one  or  the  other  must  perish Martial  law  cannot  arise 

1  The  Nation,  by  K  Mulford,  pp.  185,  186. 


730  THE  KU-KLUX  ACT. 

from  a  threatened  invasion.    The  necessily  must  be  actual  and  present  tj 

the  invasion  real,  such  as  etTectually  closes  the  courts  and  deposes  t 

civil  administration Martial  rule  can  never  exist  where  the  cour 

are  open,  and  in  the  proper  and  unobstructed  exercise  of  their  jurii^fl 
diction.     It  is  also  confined  to  the  locality  of  actual  war."' 

Though  four  of  the  judges  dissented  from  some  of  the  opin-1 
ions  expressed  by  the  court,  the  judges  were  unanimous  in  th«  J 
decree  that  was  made.     Even  the  dissenting  judges  united  in  al 
declaration  that  martial  law  can  be  authorized  only  in  time  c 
war,  and  for  the  purpose  of  punishing  crimes  against  the  secu- J 
rity  and  safety  of  the  national  forces.     And  no  member  of  the  I 
court  gave  the  least  support  to  the  proposition  that  martial  lawl 
could  be  declared  to  punish  citizens  of  the  United  States,  where! 
the  courts  of  the  United  States  were  open,  and  where  war,  by  ' 
its  flaming  presence,  has  not  made  the  administration  of  justice 
difficult  or  frnpossible.     Chief  Justice  Chase,  who  delivered  the 
dissenting  opinion,  in  which  all  the  dissenting  judges  concurred, 
said :  —  J 

Martial  law  proper  "  is  called  into  action  by  Congress,  or  temporarily,  \ 
when  the  action  of  CnriL^ess  cannot  he  inviti:d,  and  in  the  rase  of  justi- 
fying or  excusing  peril,  by  the  President,  in  times  of  insurrection  or  inva- 
sion, or  of  civil  or  foreign  war,  within  districts  or  localities  where  ordinary 
law  no  longer  adequately  secures  public  safety  and  private  rights. 

"  We  think  that  the  power  of  Congress,  in  such  times  and  in  such  lo- 
calities, to  authorize  trials  for  crimes  against  the  security  and  safety  of 
the  national  forces,  may  be  derived  from  its  constitutional  authority  to 
raise  and  support  armies  and  to  declare  war,  if  not  from  its  constitu- 
tional authority  to  provide  for  governing  the  national  forces."  * 

I  have  quoted  not  only  the  opinion  of  the  court,  but  that  of 
the  dissenting  judges,  for  the  purpose  of  exhibiting  the  una- 
nimity of  the  court  on  the  main  questions  relating  to  martial 
law.  I  cannot  think  that  this  House  will,  at  this  time,  take  such 
an  extreme  and  unprecedented  measure  as  that  here  proposed. 

Sir,  this  provision  means  war,  or  it  means  nothing;  and  I  ask 
this  House  whether  we  are  now  ready  to  take  that  step?  Shall 
we 

"Cry  ' Havock.'  and  let  slip  the  dogs  of  war"? 

I    have  taken  a  humble  part  in  one  war,  and  I  hope  I  shall 

always  be  ready  to  do  any  duty  that  the  necessities  of  the  coun- 

>  4  Wallace,  \i^--\x].  *  IbkL,  143. 


THE  KU-KLUX  ACT.  731 

try  may  require  of  me ;  but  I  am  not  willing  to  talk  war  or  to 
declare  war  in  advance  of  the  terrible  necessity.  Are  there  no 
measures  within  our  reach  which  may  aid  in  preventing  war? 
When  a  savage  war  lately  threatened  our  Western  frontiers,  we 
sent  out  commissioners  of  peace  in  the  hope  of  avoiding  war. 
Have  we  done  all  in  our  power  to  avoid  that  which  this  section 
contemplates?  I  hope  the  committee  will  bring  in  a  compan- 
ion measure  that  looks  toward  peace,  and  enable  us  to  send  the 
olive  branch  with  the  sword. 

I  hope  this  House  will  grant  general  amnesty  to  all  except 
those  who  held  high  official  trust  under  the  United  States,  and 
then,  breaking  their  oaths,  went  into  rebellion.  We  should  en- 
list both  the  pride  and  the  selfishness  of  the  people  on  the  side 
of  good  order  and  peace.  But  I  remind  gentlemen  that  we 
have  not  even  an  indication  or  suggestion  from  the  President 
that  such  a  remedy  as  martial  law  is  needed ;  and  yet  we  are 
called  upon  to  authorize  the  suspension,  not  only  of  the  great 
writ,  but  of  all  laws,  and  that,  too,  in  advance  of  any  actual 
necessity  for  it.  I  know  that  the  bill  states  the  circumstances 
under  which  martial  law  may  be  declared ;  but  why  should  we 
now  alarm  the  country  by  this  extreme  measure? 

Mr.  Shellabarger.  Because  Congress  may  not  be  in  session  when 
the  emergency  arises. 

When  neither  the  courts  nor  the  President,  with  the  army 
and  navy  to  aid  in  enforcing  the  laws,  can  keep  the  peace,  the 
President  will  be  justified  in  calling  Congress  together.  No 
stronger  reason  for  convening  Congress  could  arise  than  the 
necessity  for  martial  law. 

In  conclusion,  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have  only  to  say  that,  within 
the  limits  of  our  power,  I  will  aid  in  doing  all  things  that  are 
necessary  to  enforce  the  laws  of  the  United  States,  to  protect 
and  defend  every  officer  of  the  government  in  the  free  and  full 
exercise  of  all  his  functions,  and  to  secure  to  the  humblest  citi- 
zen the  fullest  enjoyment  of  all  the  privileges  and  immunities 
granted  him  by  the  Constitution,  and  to  demand  for  him  the 
equal  protection  of  the  laws.  All  this  can  be  done  by  this  bill 
when  amended  as  I  have  ventured  to  suggest 


THE   OHIO  CAMPAIGN  OF  1871. 

SPEECH    DELIVERED    IN    MOZART    HALL,    CINCINNATI, 

August  34.  1S71. 


The  gubernatorial  candidates  in  the  Ohio  campaign  of  1S71 
Edward  F.  Noyes,  of  Cincinnati,  Republican,  and  George  W.  McCookj 
of  Sleubenvillc,  Democrat     Tlie  canvass  was  one  of  unusual  interc 
owing  mainly  to  the  Democratic  party  of  Ohio  having  made  the  so-calledl 
"new  departure."     The  following  is  the   new  deijariure  resolution  of* 
the  State  Convention,  adopted  at   Columbus,  June  i,  1871,  which  is  dis- 
cussed below:    " That,  denouncing  the  extraordinary  nieaas  by  which 
they  were  brought  about,  we  recognize  as  accomplished  facts  the  three 
amendmeuls  in  fart  to  the  Constitution,  recently  adopted,  and  regard 
the  same  as  no  longer  political  issues  before  the  country."     This  "  de- 
parture "  was  made  under  the  leadership  of  C.  L.  Vallandigham,  who 
died  in  consequence  of  an  accident  before  the  campaign  fairly  opened. 


FELLOW-CITIZENS,  — The  State  Central  Committee  has 
assigned  to  me  the  duty  of  opening  the  campaign  of  1871 
in  this  city,  I  am  the  more  happy  to  meet  you  because  you 
have  a  special  interest  in  the  campaign  this  fall,  growing  out  of 
the  fact  that  a  distinguished  citizen  of  your  city  is  made  the 
standard-bearer  of  one  of  the  great  parties.  It  is  fitting  that 
here,  at  his  home,  so  early  in  the  campaign,  his  fellow-citizens 
and  neighbors  should  meet  together  to  consider  the  work  that 
he  is  engaged  in,  to  take  into  account  its  bearings,  and  to  scru- 
tinize the  ideas  that  are  involved  in  this  struggle.  It  is  fitting 
that  the  candidate  should  have  been  taken  this  year  from  the 
city  of  Cincinnati, 

You  are,  perhaps  without  all  of  you  being  aware  of  it,  the 
recipients  of  an  honor  this  year  that  you  never  had  before,  and 
will    probably    never  have  again.      A  curious  calculation  has 


THE  OHIO  CAMPAIGN  OF  1871,  733 

been  made  within  the  past  few  weeks,  at  the  Coast  Survey 
Office  in  Washington,  to  ascertain  the  geographical  centre  of 
our  territory,  and  also  the  centre  of  our  population,  and  with 
this  result  The  geographical  centre  of  the  United  States,  not 
considering  Alaska,  is  not  far  from  this  latitude,  and  about  a 
hundred  miles  east  of  the  western  line  of  the  State  of  Kansas, 
or  about  two  hundred  miles  west  of  the  city  of  St.  Joseph. 
The  centre  of  gravity  upon  which  the  surface  of  our  territory, 
loaded  with  its  population,  would  balance,  was  found  to  be 
about  forty-five  miles  northeast  of  Cincinnati,  that  is,  two  or 
three  miles  south  of  the  village  of  Wilmington,  in  Clinton 
County.  It  was  there  in  the  month  of  June,  1870.  I  shall  take 
it  for  granted  that  by  the  24th  of  August,  1871,  the  centre  has 
worked  its  way  to  Mozart  Hall ;  and  therefore  it  seems  to  me 
very  proper  that  the  candidate  for  Governor  should  have  been 
selected  from  this  city,  and  that  so  large  an  audience  should 
have  been  assembled  in  this  centre  of  gravity  to  consider  the 
great  topics  of  the  day. 

It  is  one  of  the  misfortunes  of  our  times  that  the  current  of 
public  thought  drifts  so  strongly  in  the  direction  of  national 
affairs  that  the  condition  and  interests  of  the  State  are  almost 
wholly  omitted  in  our  political  discussions.  In  the  two  party 
conventions  lately  held  in  Columbus,  I  find  only  a  single  brief 
reference  made  in  either  of  them  to  State  topics.  Twenty  reso- 
lutions were  passed  on  national  affairs,  and  one  sentence  only  in 
regard  to  Ohio.  And  yet  it  will  not  be  denied  that  the  State 
government  touches  the  citizen  and  his  interests  twenty  times 
where  the  national  government  touches  him  once.  For  the 
peace  of  our  streets  and  the  health  of  our  cities ;  for  the  admin- 
istration of  justice  in  nearly  all  that  relates  to  the  security  of 
persons  and  property,  and  the  punishment  of  crime;  for  the 
education  of  our  children  and  the  care  of  unfortunate  and  de- 
pendent citizens ;  for  the  assessment  and  collection  of  much  the 
larger  portion  of  our  direct  taxes  and  for  the  proper  expendi- 
ture of  the  same,  —  for  all  this,  and  much  more,  we  depend 
upon  the  honesty  and  wisdom  of  our  General  Assembly,  and 
not  upon  the  Congress  at  Washington.  In  these  lines  espe- 
cially are  the  recent  developments  of  social  science  being  made 
in  other  countries;  yet  the  doings  and  sayings  of  Congress 
and  the  national  administration  form  the  staple  of  all  our  po- 
litical discussions,  to  the  exclusion  of  these  topics.     I  hope  the 


^•^ 


754  TBM  OBIO  CAMPAIGN  OF  189A. 

tiine  may  come  when,  in  tbe  election  of  a  Governor  and  other 
State  officersi  and  of  the  members  of  a  new  Iqjisiatttre^  political 
parties  in  Ohio  will  let  Presidents  and  Congressmen  alon^,  and 
will  direct  their  discussions  to  the  great  and  manifold  iafeerests 
of  our  State. 

Nowhere  can  there  be  found  a  more  triumphant  vindication 
of  the  wisdom  of  that  system  of  government  which  is  adminis-. 
tered  by  the  people  and  for  the  people  than  in  one  of  the  well* 
regulated  States  of  our  Union.  Consider,  for  example  die 
administration  of  justice  in  our  townships  and  counties*  irii^e 
offences  against  persons  and  property  are  tried  before  judges  of 
the  people's  own  choosing,  and  before  jurors  w1k>  are  neighbors 
of  the  parties,  and  who  can  administer  justice  fiu*  better  than  is 
possible  at  distant  or  remote  points,  where  bodi  court  and  jury 
are  strangers.  Consider,  also,  our  plan  of  managing  the  finan- 
ces of  Ohio.  Last  year,  under  our  State  laws,  taxes  were  levied 
to  the  amount  of  nearly  twenty-four  millions  of  dollars.  Less 
than  five  millions  of  the  twenty-four  found  Aeir  way  to  the 
State  treasury  at  Columbus.  Less  than  four  millions,  indeed, 
were  used  for  general  State  purposes.  Nineteen  of  the  twenty- 
four  millions  were  levied  under  the  direction  of  township,  city, 
and  county  officers,  and  expended  at  home  under  the  direction 
of  the  very  men  who  specially  consented  that  the  tax  should  be 
levied.  Twelve  and  a  half  millions  were  raised  and  expended 
in  the  townships.  For  the  improvement  of  our  laws  and  the 
advancement  of  the  State  in  all  that  contributes  to  the  security 
and  prosperity  of  its  people,  the  best  efforts  of  its  most  thought- 
ful citizens  should  be  invoked. 

I  have  said  that  neither  of  the  recent  State  political  conven- 
tions has  made  more  than  a  single  reference  to  State  affairs.  I 
rejoice  that  in  that  reference  they  agree  upon  a  new  constitution 
for  Ohio.  Though  no  reasons  were  given  and  no  remarks  were 
made  on  the  subject,  yet  both  conventions  have  recommended 
the  calling  of  a  convention  to  revise  the  constitution  of  the  State. 
Since  then,  however,  Judge  R.  P.  Ranney,  of  Cleveland,  has  chal- 
lenged the  wisdom  of  this  action,  and  has  asked  the  Republican 
committee  to  show  cause  why  a  new  constitution  should  be 
framed.  This  is  a  proper  call,  though  the  Judge  might  have 
addressed  the  question  with  equal  propriety  to  the  Democratic 
committee.  Not  assuming  to  speak  for  others,  I  will  give  some 
of  the  reasons  why  I  am  in  favor  of  calling  a  convention. 


THE   OHIO  CAMPAIGN  OF  1871.  735 

The  wisdom  of  that  provision  of  our  present  constitution  which 
submits  the  question  of  calling  a  new  convention  to  the  people 
each  twentieth  year,  was  ably  vindicated  in  1851  by  Judge  Ran- 
ney,  who  was  a  member  of  the  constituent  convention  from 
Trumbull  County.  Following  the  doctrine  of  Jefferson,  that  it 
is  inconsistent  with  the  spirit  of  American  institutions  for  one 
generation  to  bind  another  without  its  consent,  he  insisted  that 
at  least  once  in  each  generation  the  fundamental  law  of  Ohio 
should  be  recommitted  to  the  judgment  of  the  people,  without 
the  previous  permission  of  two  thirds  of  the  legislature.  He 
held  that,  though  the  legislature  might  at  any  time  submit  to 
the  people  proposals  for  special  amendments,  or  for  a  general 
revision,  still  such  proposals  would  usually  come  from  one  polit- 
ical party,  and  would  not,  therefore,  be  likely  to  receive  the  fair 
and  unprejudiced  judgment  of  the  whole  people.  He  held,  fur- 
thermore, that  it  was  reasonable  to  assume  that  twenty  years  of 
growth  in  population,  wealth,  and  intelligence  would  develop 
new  wants  and  new  dangers  to  such  an  extent  that  the  people 
themselves  ought  to  take  the  initiative  in  revising  their  funda- 
mental law,  and  providing  new  safeguards  for  the  future. 

Now  there  has  never  been  in  the  history  of  our  State,  and 
possibly  may  never  be  again,  a  period  of  twenty  years  filled 
with  such  momentous  events  as  the  twenty  years  since  Judge 
Ranney  offered  these  wise  suggestions.  During  that  period 
great  and  worthy  progress  has  indeed  been  made  in  many  direc- 
tions ;  but  many  new  and  grave  dangers  to  public  liberty  have 
also  arisen,  —  dangers  which  were  not  foreseen  in  1851.  The 
tremendous  growth  of  corporations,  and  the  power  they  are 
wielding  over  States  and  legislative  bodies  was  then  almost 
unknown.  The  dangers  which  may  threaten  us  from  this  source 
are  not  adequately  provided  against  in  our  present  constitution. 
At  the  present  rate  of  growth  and  consolidation,  it  will  not  be 
long  before  the  greatest  of  our  States  may  be  less  powerful  than 
some  of  the  corporations  it  has  created.  The  day  may  come 
when  some  single  corporation,  managed  by  men  outside  of 
Ohio,  may  be  more  potent  within  her  boundaries  than  the  Gen- 
eral Assembly  itself.  Do  the  people  of  Ohio  think  it  wise  tp 
postpone  action  on  this  question  for  twenty  years  longer?  Let 
it  be  remembered  that,  in  the  almost  even  balance  of  political 
parties  in  Ohio,  our  constitution  is  practically  not  amendable 
by  the  ordinary  method. 


^t         736  T//£   OHIO  CAMPAIGN  OF  1871.  ^^^ 

There  is  another  danger  against  which  the  people  cannot  forc- 
fcnd  themselves  a  day  too  soon.     The  last  twenty  years  have        ' 
witnessed  the  most  alarming  progress  in  the  various  devices  by 
which  bribery  and  corruption  have  found  their  way  to  the  polls 
and  into  legislative  bodies.     Every  citizen  of  Ohio  may  be  justly 
proud  of  the  fact  thai  hitherto  neither  the  ballot-box,  nor  the 
General  Assembly,  nor  the  courts  of  our  State,  have  been  tainted        I 
with  this  pollution.     But  who  dare  affirm  that  its  westward  pro- 
gress will  not  reach  us  before  1891?     While  there  is  yet  time, 
let  us  build  the  dikes,  and  prepare  to  keep  out  the  rising  flood. 
In  the  new  constitution  of  Illinois,  adopted  last  year,  bribery  at 
the  polls  and  in  the  legislature  is  rendered  almost  impossible. 
No  form  of  constitutional   enactment  can  purify  the  hearts  of        , 
villains;  but  I  hciicvc  the  provisions  of  that  constitution  have 
made  it  exceedingly  unsafe  for  a  man  to  practise  his  rascality  in        , 
the  General  Assembly  of  Illinois.      It  is  said  that  the  new  pro- 
visions drove  the  lobby  from  Springfield  last  winter;   let  us  shut 
the  door  before  it  reaches  Columbus, 

The  State  needs  greater  safeguards  on  the  subject  of  taxation,  | 
and  a  readjustment  of  its  revenue  system.  It  is  estimated  that 
the  aggregate  taxation  of  the  American  people,  for  national, 
State,  and  local  purposes,  amounts  each  year  to  more  than  one 
third  of  the  principal  of  our  national  debt.  This  taxation,  dis- 
tributed per  capita,  amounts  to  nearly  twenty  dollars  to  each 
inhabitant,  —  a  higher  rate  than  any  modern  nation  has  ever 
before  maintained  in  time  of  peace.  The  burden  of  the  national 
taxes  has  been  rapidly  and  constantly  diminishing  during'  the 
last  five  years,  but  the  taxes  of  cities,  towns,  and  counties,  under 
State  laws,  have  been  increasing  enormously.  Comparing  our 
taxes  in  Ohio  in  1863  with  those  for  1870,  and  omitting  the 
special  war  taxes  of  the  former  year,  I  find  that  the  levies  for 
State  purposes  have  increased  about  forty  per  cent, —  not  an 
exorbitant  increase  considering  the  general  rise  in  prices  and 
the  condition  of  the  currency.  But  during  that  period  levies 
for  county  and  other  local  purposes  have  increased  nearly  two 
hi;ndrcd  and  seventy-five  per  cent.  In  seven  years  our  local 
taxation  has  risen  from  six  and  three  quarters  millions  to  eigh- 
teen and  three  quarters  millions.  Governor  Hayes  recently 
called  the  attention  of  the  General  Assembly  to  this  growing 
evil,  which  is  no  doubt  the  result  of  that  general  spirit  of  prodi- 
gality and  extravagance  which  has  everywhere  prevailed  since 


THE   OHIO   CAMPAIGN  OF  1871.  737 

the  war.  The  limitation  of  local  debt  and  taxation  is  now  left 
to  the  General  Assembly.  It  should  be  placed  in  the  fundamen- 
tal law,  above  the  reach  of  party  influence,  where  the  pressure 
of  local  schemes  of  taxation  and  expenditure  cannot  come.  No 
one  can  read  the  article  of  the  new  constitution  of  Illinois  on 
revenues  and  taxation  without  congratulating  the  people  of  that 
State  on  their  fortunate  escape  from  the  evils  that  now  afflict  us. 

In  many  particulars  the  theory  of  representative  government 
has  been  improved  during  the  last  twenty  years.  It  will  not  be 
denied  that  the  suffrage  should  be  so  regulated  that  the  vote  of 
every  elector,  as  far  as  possible,  shall  have  its  due  weight  in  the 
choice  of  public  servants.  No  citizen  should  feel  that  his  vote 
is  useless,  and  every  political  community  should  feel  the  re- 
straining influence  of  the  minority  party.  But  how  is  it  in  our 
State?  The  twelve  counties  that  compose  the  Western  Reserve 
send  to  the  General  Assembly  seven  Senators  and  seventeen 
Representatives,  —  nearly  one  fifth  of  the  whole  body.  These 
officers  are  elected  by  the  votes  of  fifty  thousand  Republicans. 
The  twenty  thousand  Democratic  voters  on  the  Reserve  have 
not  one  man  of  their  choice  in  either  branch  of  the  legislature. 
In  such  elections  they  are  virtually  disfranchised.  On  the  other 
hand,  there  is  a  belt  of  thirteen  counties,  commencing  with 
Wayne  County,  on  the  southern  line  of  the  Reserve,  and  extend- 
ing to  and  including  Adams  County,  on  the  Ohio  River,  which 
send  to  the  General  Assembly  six  Senators  and  fifteen  Repre- 
sentatives. These  are  elected  by  forty  thousand  Democrats,  and 
the  thirty  thousand  Republican  voters  in  that  belt  of  territory 
have  virtually  no  voice  in  the  choice  of  their  representatives, 
and  are  utterly  powerless  at  the  polls.  Both  the  Republicans  of 
this  belt  and  the  Democrats  of  the  Reserve  should  be  heard  in 
regard  to  the  government  of  the  townships,  counties,  and  judi- 
cial and  representative  districts  where  they  live,  and  I  have  no 
doubt  both  parties  would  be  better  if  such  were  the  case.  The 
inequality  and  injustice  complained  of  can  be,  in  a  great  meas- 
ure, removed  by  adopting  some  plan  for  the  representation  of 
minorities.  The  experiment  has  been  tried  successfully,  and 
would  doubtless  promote  the  public  good  in  the  election  of  rep- 
resentatives, judges,  county  commissioners,  township  trustees, 
school  directors,  and  all  officers  who  can  be  elected  in  groups. 

I  have  suggested  these  classes  of  amendments  only  as  exam- 
ples of  many  that  might  be  made.     They  are  not  partisan  in 

VOL.  I.  47 


73« 


THE    OHIO   CAMPAIGN  OF  1S7. 


arties. 


character,  &nd  arc  addressed  to  thoughtful  men  of  both  partii 
The  average  age  of  our  American  Slate  constitutions  at  the 
present  time  is  less  than  seventeen  years,  and  I  hope  that  Ohio 
will  not  wait  till  her  constitution  is  forty  years  old  before  she 
attempts  to  make  it  more  fully  in  harmony  with  the  spirit  and 
wants  of  Our  lime.  The  work  of  the  convention  need  not  be 
complicated  with  the  passions  and  antagonisms  of  the  Presi- 
dential election,  for  the  new  constitution  could  hardly  be  ready 
for  the  judgment  of  the  people  before  the  spring  of  1 873. 

And  now,  fellow-citizens,  I  am  compelled  to  follow  the  fashion 
of  the  time,  and  consider  the  relations  of  the  two  great  political 
parties  to  national  affairs. 

It  is  comforting  to  find  that  even  on  one  topic  of  national 
policy  the  two  parties  agree.  I  know  that  the  hterature  of 
party  platforms  frequently  illustrates  Talleyrand's  definition 
of  language,  —  "an  instrument  skilfully  contrived  to  conceal 
thought";  but  something  is  gained  when  the  two  parties  put 
themselves  on  record  as  approving  a  reform  in  the  civil  service 
of  the  government.  After  not  a  little  study  of  the  subject.  I 
say,  without  hesitation,  that  it  would  be  difficult  for  any  man  to 
exaggerate  the  evils  which  now  afflict  that  branch  of  the  public 
service.  The  situation  is  all  the  more  dangerous  from  the  fact 
that  the  evil  is  old,  and  that  no  one  political  party  or  adminis- 
tration is  wholly  responsible  for  it.  It  is  the  result  of  an  apos- 
tasy from  the  theory  and  practice  of  the  fathers,  which  began 
with  Jackson  and  has  grown  with  steady  and  fearful  rapidity 
until  the  present  time.  It  began  by  ignoring  the  fact  that 
offices  were  created  and  should  be  maintained  solely  for  the 
service  of  the  government,  and  by  regarding  them  as  the  legiti- 
mate spoils  of  party  triumph.  We  read  with  amazement  the 
story  of  Pontchartrain,  Finance  Minister  of  Louis  XIV.,  who 
created  multitudes  of  useless  offices  and  sold  them  to  the  high- 
est bidder,  as  a  measure  of  revenue.  There  was  grim  humor 
in  his  remark  to  the  king,  "  As  often  as  your  Majesty  has  created 
an  office,  so  often  has  God  made  a  fool  to  buy  it."  But  that 
was  nearly  two  centuries  ago,  and  he  made  no  pretence  to  de- 
fending his  policy,  except  that  it  put  money  in  the  royal 
treasury.  Unconsciously,  and  by  stow  degrees,  the  people  of 
the  United  States  have  allowed  a  policy  to  harden  into  custom, 
which  is  nearly  if  not  quite  as  bad.  It  has  come  to  be  regarded 
as  a  proper  thing  to  treat  the  seventy  thousand  government 


THE   OHIO   CAMPAIGN  OF  1871.  739 

offices,  great  and  small,  as  stock  in  trade  to  be  used  by  the 
leaders  of  central  and  local  politics  to  insure  success  at  elec- 
tions, and  to  reward  active  party  workers.  Offices  are  not  actu- 
ally sold  in  the  market  for  money,  but  they  are  distributed  for 
what  is  frequently  less  valuable,  viz.  political  service. 

In  the  army  and  navy  service  is  honorable,  because  it  rests 
chiefly  upon  merit  and  the  continued  ability  and  faithfulness  of 
the  officer.  Not  so  in  the  lower  walks  of  the  civil  service. 
Merit  is  not  the  surest  road  to  appointment  or  preferment;  and 
the  most  devoted  and  intelligent  faithfulness  is  no  security 
against  abrupt  dismissal.  It  follows  that  the  government  is 
poorly  and  irregularly  served,  and  the  great  body  of  people 
who  serve  it,  especially  in  the  more  subordinate  capacities,  hold 
their  positions  by  a  tenure  most  uncertain  and  under  circum- 
stances most  unfavorable  to  their  manliness  and  independence. 
The  system  is  as  debasing  to  them  as  it  is  costly  and  inefficient 
to  the  government.  When  Andrew  Johnson  deserted  the  Re- 
publican party,  all  the  thoroughfares  of  travel  were  thronged 
with  political  pilgrims  on  their  way  to  Washington,  eager  to 
devour  the  smallest  crumb  of  patronage,  and  demanding  a 
general  dismissal  of  officials,  even  down  to  the  humblest  door- 
keeper and  messenger.  Many  of  the  numerous  changes  made 
by  him  were  forced  upon  him  by  the  pressure  of  importunate 
office-seekers,  whom  he  could  not  resist.  Some  of  the  cabi- 
net officers  remonstrated,  declaring  that  the  merciless  work  of 
decapitation  was  sweeping  away  their  most  trusted  and  efficient 
subordinates,  and  crippling  the  work  of  their -departments;  but 
the  cry  for  spoils,  demanded  in  the  name  of  party,  drowned  all 
other  voices,  and  private  injury  and  the  public  service  were 
alike  forgotten.  In  his  distress  at  the  spectacle  witnessed  in 
his  own  department.  Secretary  McCulloch  once  said,  "  If  you 
give  me  one  half  what  it  costs  to  run  the  Treasury  Department 
of  the  United  States,  I  will  do  all  the  work  better  than  it  is  now 
done,  and  make  a  great  fortune  out  of  what  I  can  save." 

It  is  said  that  some  evils  are  so  deeply  seated  that  they  must 
get  worse  before  they  can  get  better.  Judged  by  this  rule,  the 
symptoms  are  favorable ;  for  the  evils  of  our  civil  service  have 
long  been,  not  merely  ripe,  but  rotten.  Last  year,  Thomas 
Hughes,  an  honored  and  influential  member  of  the  British  Par- 
liament, and  the  intimate  personal  and  political  friend  of  the 
present  ministry,  declared  in  a  public  address   before  a  New 


1 


740  THE   OHIO   CAMPAIGN  OF  1871, 

York  audience  that  he  had  no  power  to  secure  the  appointment 
of  even  the  humblest  clerk  in  the  civi!  service  of  Great  Britain. 
It  will  be  a  proud  day  for  our  country  when  leading  members 
of  Congress  can  say  the  same  thing  for  themselves  in  regard  to 
our  civil  servkn. 

I  count  it  among  the  diief  ^liea  of  the  Republicaaiparty 
that  they  have  begua  the  work  of  lefons.  A  ooUe«ffoit  liM 
recently  made  in  tiiis  directioii  by  a  dutingaislwd  citiien  of 
your  own  city,'  and  its  beneficial  results  will  not  be  forgotten 
dther  in  the  Department  of  the  Interior  or  by  ^  peof^ 
More  recently  atiU,  Congress  baa  laid  thcfettodation  of  s  ge«- 
eral  reform,  and  the  Fresideat  has  app<Mnted  «  commktiee  of 
earnest  and  able  men  to  devi&e  some  plan  for  restoring  the  sm^ 
vice  to  honor  vaA  to  duly.  This  ia  »  good  begJnauig;'  bitt  I 
warn  the  people  that  tha«  can  be  no  wor&y  success  wi^iotit 
the  determined  and  active  support  of  public  opinion.  No  nn- 
gle  department,  not  even  Congress  and  tbe  admudstrtdKm  cooi- 
bined,  can  successfully  reust  the  force  <^  depraved  custom  until 
public  opinion  shall  make  a  demwid  so  imperative  Aateven  tite 
selfish  interests  of  politicians  are  enlisted  on  the  right  side.  It 
is  easy  for  the  Democratic  party  to  favor  reform  when  it  costs 
them  no  sacrifice ;  let  us  hope  they  will  remember  their  late 
declaration  should  they  again  get  into  power. 

Besides  the  civil  service  there  appears  to  be  nothing  on  which 
the  two  parties  agree,  not  even  the  recent  treaty  with  Great  Brit- 
ain, the  making  of  which  has  honored  human  nature,  and  has 
placed  two  great  and  kindred  nations  in  the  front  rank  of  civil- 
ized diplomacy.  Our  last  war  with  England,  and  the  negotia- 
tions which,  after  many  years,  resulted  from  it,  added  as  a  new 
chapter  to  international  law  the  American  protest  against  the 
right  of  search.  But  now,  the  settlement  without  war  of  diffi- 
culties far  graver  than  those  which  led  to  the  war  of  1812,  and 
the  recognition  of  the  American  doctrines  of  the  rights  and 
duties  of  neutral  nations  in  time  of  war,  have  added  a  far  more 
important  chapter  to  the  laws  of  nations.  But  though  this  great 
treaty  was  hailed  with  rejoicings  by  the  good  people  of  both 
nations,  we  are  told  that  the  votes  of  the  Democratic  Senators 
were  almost  unanimously  against  it.  It  is  difficult  to  imagine 
any  other  reason  for  this  vote  than  the  fact  that  the  treaty  was 
the  work  of  a  Republican  administration. 

>  Hod.  J.  D.  Cox,  Secreury  of  ihe  Intedor,  1S69-70. 


THE  OHIO  CAMPAIGN  OF  1871.  741 

While  the  treaty  of  Washington  has  settled  the  most  serious 
of  our  foreign  troubles  growing  out  of  the  late  war,  there  unfor- 
tunately remain  at  home  results  of  the  conflict  even  more  diffi- 
cult to  adjust.  It  has  been  the  constant  aim  of  the  Republican 
party  to  heal  the  wounds  of  the  war,  and  bury  In  the  oblivion 
of  generous  amnesty  the  passions  it  engendered.  It  has  de- 
manded, as  the  condition  of  restoration,  equal  justice  to  all,  and 
the  security  of  the  future  to  liberty  by  irreversible  guaranties 
placed  in  the  national  Constitution,  above  the  reach  of  party 
fickleness  and  sectional  hate.  But  the  rage  of  defeated  Rebels, 
aided  by  the  sympathy  of  the  Democracy,  has  brought  on  a 
condition  of  affairs  in  the  South  in  which  life  and  property  are 
endangered.  It  will  hardly  be  denied  that  a  formidable  attempt 
has  been  made  to  prevent  the  enforcement  of  the  recent  amend- 
ments to  the  Constitution,  and  to  deprive  a  large  class  of  our 
citizens  of  the  equal  protection  of  the  laws.  I  shall  leave  to 
others  who  have  recently  investigated  the  subject  the  fuller  dis- 
cussion of  the  character  and  object  of  these  outrages.  I  will 
only  say  ccfncerning  the  recent  act  of  Congress  known  as  the 
Ku-Klux  Law,  that,  though  a  severe  and  stringent  measure,  and 
drawn  up  close  to  the  line  which  separates  the  national  from 
the  State  jurisdiction,  yet  it  has  for  its  sole  object  the  enforce- 
ment of  the  new  amendments,  and  the  guaranty  to  all  citizens 
of  the  just  and  equal  protection  of  the  laws.  Neither  the  pro- 
visions of  that  act  as  it  finally  passed,  nor  the  constitutional 
amendments  which  it  enforces,  were  designed  to  take  away 
from  the  States  their  rights  of  local  government,  or  to  disturb 
the  admirable  balance  of  our  dual  system  of  national  and  local 
governments.  The  penalties  of  the  act  are  levelled  against  those 
who  wilfully  attempt  to  deprive  citizens  of  the  rights  and  privi- 
leges guaranteed  to  them  by  the  Constitution. 

In  entering  upon  the  discussion  of  our  financial  situation,  I 
ask  the  attention  of  the  audience  to  a  few  general  reflections. 

There  is  no  surer  test  of  the  character  and  spirit  of  a  govern- 
ment than  its  management  of  fiscal  affairs.  All  kinds  of  public 
mismanagement  and  rascality  are  sure  to  appear,  sooner  or  later, 
in  the  form  of  drafts  on  the  treasury,  increasing  debts,  or  in- 
creasing taxes.  Bankruptcy  was  the  last  stage  of  the  disease 
which  killed  the  old  French  monarchy.  The  reckless  wars 
waged  with  neighboring  nations,  the  profligacy  of  the  king  and 
his  court,  the  extravagance  and  prodigality  that  everywhere  per- 


I  vac 


^42  THE   OHIO   CAMPAIGN  OP  1871. 

vaded  the  government,  assumed  at  last  the  form  of  deficits  that 
could  not  be  concealed,  of  debts  that  could  not  be  paid,  and  of 
taxes  that  could  not  be  endured.  Just  on  the  eve  of  the  great 
revolution  of  17S9,  Nccker  abandoned  the  treasury  in  despair, 
assuring  the  king  that  the  accumulated  expenses  were  an  abyss 
whose  depths  could  no  longer  be  sounded.  "  In  that  abyss," 
says  the  historian  Martin.  "  the  monarchy  was  finally  engulfed." 
The  French  Kmpire  which  has  just  fallen  in  ruins  affords  a 
still  stronger  illustration  of  this  truth.  The  man  who  stole 
France  in  1852  appeared  for  many  years  to  have  sanctified  his 
theft  by  the  success  and  brilliancy  of  his  reign,  and  the  world 
was  beginning  to  admit  his  claims  to  the  title  of  Second  Augus- 
tus, who  found  I'aris  brick  and  would  leave  it  marble.  But  the 
prestige  of  the  name  he  bore,  the  brilliancy  of  his  reign,  the 
devotion  of  bis  army,  the  support  of  a  subsidized  nobility  and 
subservient  legislature,  were  all  powerless  against  the  startling 
significance  of  a  few  columns  of  figures,  prepared  by  a  tlioughl- 
ful  student  of  finance,  and  published  three  years  ago  in  a  mod- 
est pamphlet  entitled  "  The  Balance  Sheet  of  tht  Empire." 
This  pamphlet  might  be  called  the  Empire's  death-warrant 
It  exposed  the  jugglery  by  which  enormous  deficits  had  been 
kept  out  of  sight.  It  disclosed  a  public  debt,  increasing  in  a 
ratio  whose  inevitable  last  term  must  be  bankruptcy  and  ruin  at 
no  distant  day.  It  showed  the  fact  that  during  the  fifteen  years 
of  the  Empire  its  army  and  navy  had  swallowed  more  than 
10,000,000,000  francs  of  the  public  money.  It  exhibited  the 
immense  sums  expended  in  endowments,  enrolments,  and  gifts 
to  officials,  and  to  powerful  politicians,  as  a  means  of  converting 
them  to  Napoleonism.  It  stated  the  cost  of  extravagant  public 
works  undertaken  for  the  sake  of  increasing  artificially  the 
wages  of  workmen,  and  making  them  look  upon  the  Emperor 
as  their  special  Providence.  It  named  the  sums  annually  ex- 
pended on  public  galleries  and  theatres  to  amuse  the  people  and 
make  them  forget  their  lost  liberties.  It  pointed  to  the  fact  that 
but  23,000,000  francs  a  year  —  less  than  twelve  cents  a  head  — 
had  been  expended  in  educating  the  children  of  France,  and 
that  in  her  cities  hardly  half  the  population  could  write  their 
names.  And  finally,  in  a  masterly  analysis  of  the  imperial  sys- 
tem of  taxation,  it  showed  that  twenty-five  per  cent  of  the  an- 
nual net  earnings  of  the  French  people  were  taken  from  them 
as  taxes.    All  this  time,  while  life  in  France  appeared  a  con- 


THE   OHIO   CAMPAIGN  OF  1871.  743 

tinued  and  glorious  holiday,  the  foundations  of  the  national 
strength  were  being  honeycombed  through  and  through  by  the 
fatal  mismanagement  of  the  finances.  The  explosive  material 
was  all  in  place,  and  the  train  laid,  long  before  the  Germans 
crossed  the  Rhine.  France  was  defeated  before  the  first  gun 
was  fired.  Gravelotte  and  Sedan  were  but  the  noise  and  smoke 
of  an  explosion  which  eighteen  years  of  financial  mismanage- 
ment had  prepared. 

The  principle  I  have  stated  is  strikingly  illustrated  by  the 
present  municipal  government  of  New  York  City.  For  many 
years  it  had  been  believed  that  the  city  was  in  the  grasp  of  po- 
litical robbers,  though  proofs  were  not  so  easily  found.  But  it 
needed  only  the  exhibition  of  a  single  financial  fact  to  put  the 
Tammany  triumvirate  in  the  pillory  of  public  judgment,  where 
they  are  now  being  pelted  with  showers  of  figures,  against  which 
they  seem  to  have  no  defence.  The  fact  to  which  I  refer  is,  that 
within  the  last  eight  months  the  debt  of  the  city  has  increased 
more  than  $50,000,000,  while  the  necessary  expenses  have  not 
been  very  extraordinary.  By  what  other  process  could  political 
villany  be  so  thoroughly  unveiled  as  by  the  publication  of  the 
enormous  expenses  now  being  exhibited  in  the  daily  journals  of 
New  York?  These  Democratic  rulers  of  that  city  are  powerless 
before  the  published  evidences  that  they  have  paid  $7,000,000 
for  a  court-house  worth  only  $2,000,000;  that  they  have  paid 
two  millions  of  the  seven  for  repairs,  though  the  building  was 
new  less  than  four  years  ago ;  that  they  have  paid  for  one  hun- 
dred and  two  acres  of  plastering  for  its  walls ;  that  they  have 
bought  for  its  floors  twenty-five  square  acres  of  carpets,  at  five 
dollars  a  yard,  and  for  three  public  buildings  seventeen  miles 
of  chairs,  at  five  dollars  a  piece.  The  voice  of  the  press  and 
the  people  is  thundering  in  their  ears  the  demand  for  the 
accounts,  the  exhibits,  —  the  bills.  But  the  Sachems  do  not 
answer.  Meanwhile  the  city  is  disgraced  abroad,  and  its  stocks 
are  stricken  from  the  list  of  public  securities  bought  and  sold 
in  one  of  the  leading  markets  of  Europe.  What  else  but  the 
terrible  arithmetic  of  finance  could  have  so  shaken  the  throne 
whereon  Tammany  sits,  gorged  with  public  plunder?  After 
the  recent  exposure,  who  can  doubt  that  all  this  robbery  is  the 
vital  part  of  that  well-disciplined  organization  which  has  so  long 
ruled  and  debased  our  great  metropolis,  and  has  at  last  seized 
and  debauched  the  political  power  of  our  greatest  State?     In 


744  THE   OHIO   CAMPAIGX  OF  1S71. 

a  letter  which  I  received  a  few  days  since  from  a  promiaent  a 
worthy  citizen  of  New  York,  occurs  this  passage:   "From  1 
own  knowledge  of  the  crimes  of  the  Tammany  Ring,  and  frotal 
what  I   know  on  unimpeachable  authority,  I  estimate  the  : 
they  have  stolen  from  thiscity  at  not  less  than  $ioo,ooo.ooo.'*j 
I    rejoice  that  tJie  Democracy  of  Ohio   have  not   gone    dow 
into  the  depths  where  their  New  York  brethren  are  wallowing J< 
but  they  ought  to  be  reminded  every  day  in  the  year  that  the! 
Tammany  league  is  their  political  master,  and  under  its  leader- 
ship alone  is  the  election  of  a  Democratic  I'resident  possible. 
Let  it  not  be  forgotten  that  the  day  which  witnesses  the  triumph 
of  the  Democracy  in  this  nation  will  witness  also  the  legions  of  ■ 
Tammany  entering  the  national  capital  to  re-enact   there   the  \ 
scenes  that  have  made  New  York  our  political  Sodom, 

From  this  horrible  picture  of  Democratic  misrule.  I  turn  with 
pride  and  satisfaction  to  consider  tlie  administration  of  our 
national  finances.  The  Republican  party  comes  forward  with 
its  exhibits  and  vouchers  in  full  detail.  It  offers  the  national 
balance  sheet  for  inspection  and  scrutiny.  It  challenges  the 
most  rigid  application  of  this  most  searching  test.  And,  first, 
let  us  apply  the  most  palpable  of  all  tests,  —  the  expenditures 
of  the  government.  Have  they  been  wisely  incurred?  Are 
they  honestly  paid?  And,  above  all,  are  they  increasing  or 
diminishing? 

Since  the  heaviest  of  the  war  bills  were  paid,  a  constant  and 
heavy  reduction  of  expenditures  has  been  taking  place.  The 
total  amount  of  this  reduction  is  more  than  $85,000,000  since 
June  30,  1868.  That  is,  we  now  annually  expend  $85,000,000 
less  than  we  did  three  years  ago.  An  analysis  of  our  present 
expenditures  will  show  which  are  the  heavy  items,  and  will  ex- 
hibit the  limits  beyond  which  the  work  of  reduction  cannot  go  at 
present.  The  total  amount  of  expenditure  is  now  $292,000,000, 
Much  the  larger  part  of  this  sum  is  paid  for  obligations  cre- 
ated by  the  war.  These  extraordinary  items  for  the  fiscal  year 
just  closed,  stated  in  round  numbers,  stand  thus :  — 

Interest  on  the  public  debt f  135,500,000 

Expenses  of  national  loan 9,000,000 

Pensions       34,000,000 

Balance  of  expenses  of  late  war 10,500,000 

Expenses  of  internal  revenue  department    .     ,  7,000,000 

Total ti  86,000,000 


THE   OHIO  CAMPAIGN  OF  187 1.  745 

No  part  of  these  expenses  can  be  avoided  without  dishonor 
or  wanton  neglect.  This  amount,  taken  from  the  total  expen- 
diture, leaves  for  the  ordinary  expenses  of  the  year  about 
$106,000,000.  It  must  be  remembered  that  this  sum  includes 
the  total  expenses  of  our  present  army  and  navy,  which,  though 
reduced  to  the  smallest  force  consistent  with  the  necessities  of 
the  country,  are  nevertheless  larger  in  consequence  of  the  dis- 
turbances resulting  from  the  war.  When  we  remember  that  our 
expenses  are  now  reckoned  in  a  depreciated  currency,  not  in 
gold  and  silver,  and  that  they  are  made  for  thirty-one  millions 
of  people,  it  will  be  seen  that  the  government  expenditure  has 
been  restored  to  a  peace  basis,  and  that  it  is  much  more  eco- 
nomical than  at  any  previous  period  since  the  war.  This  exhibit 
is  a  conclusive  and  unanswerable  proof  that  a  spirit  wholly 
unlike  that  of  Tammany  Hall  pervades  the  administration  of 
national  affairs. 

The  revenue  collected  under  our  tax  laws  affords  another 
gratifying  evidence  of  the  thorough  and  honest  enforcement  of 
the  laws.  During  the  fiscal  year  ending  June  30, 1866,  our  total 
revenues,  exclusive  of  loans,  exceeded  $558,000,000.  Since 
that  time  taxes  have  been  abolished  which,  at  the  time  of  their 
repeal,  were  producing  an  aggregate  of  $251,000,000.  Yet, 
because  of  the  growth  of  our  wealth,  and  of  the  faithful  collec- 
tion of  our  taxes,  the  total  receipts  of  the  year  ending  June  30, 
1 87 1,  were  $383,000,000,  leaving  a  surplus  of  receipts  over  ex- 
penditures of  $91,000,000.  While  I  do  not  applaud  the  policy 
which  has  preferred  a  great  reduction  of  the  debt  rather  than  a 
greater  reduction  of  taxation,  yet  it  is  a  just  ground  of  pride 
that  the  burden  has  been  so  greatly  lessened.  From  the  ist  of 
March,  1869,  (three  days  before  the  inauguration  of  President 
Grant,)  to  the  first  day  of  the  present  month,  there  has  been 
paid  of  the  principal  of  the  public  debt,  $242,134,402.03.  This 
payment  and  the  operations  of  refunding  have  reduced  the 
annual  charge  of  interest  by  the  amount  of  $14,750,000. 

The  result  of  our  financial  administration  has  been  a  steady 
improvement  of  our  credit  at  home  and  abroad.  With  the  ex- 
ception of  the  legal-tender  notes,  which  are  still  dishonored  by 
nonpayment,  there  is  scarcely  a  pecuniary  obligation  of  the 
government  which  is  not  worth  in  gold  the  full  amount  prom- 
ised on  its  face.  This  state  of  credit  has  made  it  possible  to 
refund  a  considerable  part  of  our  maturing  six  per  cent  debt 


746  THE   OHIO   CAMPAIGN  OP^^' 


into  new  bonds  at  five  per  cent  Over  $60,000,000  has  thus 
been  converted  within  a  few  months,  and  the  Secretary  of  the 
Treasury  has  just  completed  negotiations  for  the  remainder  of 
the  $200,000,000  offered.  In  this  way  the  preservation  of  good 
fiuth  comes  back  to  the  government  id  the  form  of  money 
saved,  tA  expenses  reduced,  and  affords  another  proof  that  hon- 
eaQf  is  more  profitable  than  any  form  of  open  or  covert  ras- 
cal!^. 

For  the  same  reasons,  also,  it  has  been  possible  greatly  to 
reduce  the  burdens  of  taxation.  Since  July,  i865,  seven  difTer- 
eot  acts  have  been  passed,  by  which  taxes  were  abolished  that 
produced  at  the  time  of  their  repeal  a  total  of  $25 1 ,000,000  per 
annum.  This  reduction  has  been  vitally  important  to  the  busi- 
ness of  tile  country.  For  the  last  two  years,  and  especially 
during  the  last  six  months,  there  has  been  a  constant  tendency 
to  lower  prices.  We  are  slowly  descending  to  the  level  of 
nonnd  prices,  to  the  smaller  though  sure  gains  of  regular  in- 
dustry. The  consequent  shrinkage  of  values  bears  hard  upon 
all  enterprises,  and  especially  upon  debtors,  and  makes  the  bur- 
den of  taxes  felt  more  heavily  now  than  when  the  rate  was 
higher.  For  this  reason,  the  demand  that  taxation  be  reduced 
to  the  lowest  amount  consistent  with  the  national  faith  is  still 
imperative.  Some  reduction  of  the  public  debt  should  be  made 
every  year;  but  $100,000,000  a  year  is  much  too  large  a  sum 
to  raise  for  that  purpose  in  the  present  condition  of  the  country. 
As  rapidly  as  possible  we  should  muster  out  our  remaining  war 
taxes,  and  place  our  revenue  system  on  a  peace  basis.  It  is 
clearly  possible  to  reduce  the  burdens  of  taxation  during  the 
coming  winter  by  at  least  $60,000,000,  and  still  have  a  sur- 
plus of  $40,000,000  to  apply  to  paying  the  principal  of  the 
public  debt.  Nor  have  I  a  doubt  that  the  Republicans  in 
Congress  will  make  that  amount  of  reduction.  How  and  on 
what? 

First,  the  internal  taxes  can  be  further  reduced.  That  branch 
of  our  revenue  system  produced  $309,000,000  in  1866,  and  was, 
without  doubt,  the  heaviest  and  most  oppressive  internal  tax 
known  in  modern  times.  The  last  reduction,  made  by  the  act 
of  July,  1870,  has  left  an  internal  tax  on  only  six  classes  of 
things  from  which  revenue  was  produced  during  the  year  ending 
June  30,  1871. 

The  revenue  produced  is  as  follows:  — 


THE   OHIO   CAMPAIGN  OF  1871.  747 

1.  Spirits  and  fermented  liquors l53»S00|0oo 

2.  Tobacco 33,500,000 

3.  Banks  and  bankers 3,750,000 

4.  Illuminating  gas 2,500,000 

5.  Stamps 15,500,000 

6.  Incomes 19,250,000 

Add  taxes  received  during  the  year  from  old 

rates,  now  repealed 15,500,000 

Total 1143,500,000 

Some  attempt  is  being  made  to  sweep  away  what  remains 
of  our  internal  revenue  system ;  but  I  believe  there  is  no  tax 
which  the  people  more  fully  approve  than  that  which  levies 
$87,cxx),ooo  a  year  upon  the  consumers  of  liquors  and  tobacco. 
It  is  a  voluntary  tax,  from  which  every  citizen  can  escape  by 
abstinence.  Its  imposition  does  not  seriously  cripple  any  indus- 
try, and  it  probably  has  less  tendency  than  any  other  to  increase 
the  cost  of  the  necessaries  of  life. 

The  retention  of  the  income  tax  at  the  late  session,  in  its 
present  shape,  was,  in  my  judgment,  a  blunder.  If  any  part  of 
it  had  been  retained,  it  should  have  been  the  tax  on  incomes 
arising  from  the  investment  of  capital,  where  the  owner  does 
not  add  to  his  capital  his  own  labor.  The  tax  in  its  present 
shape  is  fatally  crippled  as  a  revenue  measure,  and  should  be 
abolished.  In  many  of  the  rural  districts  the  receipts  do  not 
pay  the  cost  of  collection,  and  the  law  still  retains  its  obnoxious 
features,  compelling  citizens  to  expose  their  business,  and  mak- 
ing it  possible  for  dishonest  men  to  escape  assessment.  All 
nations  that  have  levied  a  tax  on  incomes  have  regarded  it  as  a 
powerful  instrument,  to  be  used  only  in  great  emergencies,  —  a 
war  measure,  which,  like  a  drafted  army,  should  be  mustered 
out  in  time  of  peace.  So  annoying  is  an  income  tax  regarded 
in  France,  so  irritating  in  its  interference  with  the  privacy  of 
business,  that  the  venerable  Thiers,  chief  Executive  of  France, 
announced  in  the  National  Assembly  a  few  days  since  that,  de- 
plorable as  was  the  financial  condition  of  his  country,  it  was  not 
so  desperate  as  to  warrant  the  imposition  of  an  income  tax. 

The  small  tax  on  illuminating  gas  can  also  be  spared,  and 
the  remaining  taxes,  those  on  liquors,  tobacco,  banks,  and  the 
stamp  tax,  can  be  collected  by  a  greatly  reduced  organization. 
Thus  modified,  our  internal  revenue  system  will  produce  about 


r  1 

m       748  T/f£   OHIO   CAMPAIGN  OF  i^ii.  ■ 

■  %i20fiO0,0CQ  a  year,  ami  its  retention  will  doubtless  receive  tlic  ' 
cordial  sanction  of  tiie  people.  Bnt  after  even  lUt  ledncfiat 
and  modification  of  tbe  iatstnal  revenue  has  bees  tna^,  tfaae 
can  stUl  be  a  fiiither  repeal  of  taxes  to  the  amodBt  ilf  6uitft- 
five  or  forty  milliooB  of  dollus.  And  this  brii^  me  to  tlie 
consideration  of  our  revenuet  from  costxnns. 

In  &e  first  place, 'thb  shoold  be  treated,  not  n  S'tiieoretkd, 
but  as  an  intensely  pnu^cal  question.  The  dwoniMs  of  both 
schools  may  be  benefited  by  remembering  Ae  criticism  oft 
recent  writer,  who  says  that  "  the  protectionist,  in  hb  va&  fbr 
the  prosperity  of  the  prodocer,  is  ccHUtastly  in  dao^er  of  ft>r- 
getting  the  intoQsts  and  rights  of  tiie  consuma-;  andtiiatthe 
ftee-trader,  in  bis  anxiety  to  Ughten  tbe  burdens  of  tlw  cob* 
sumer,  is  in  equal  danger  of  forgetting  the  interests  of  die  pn- 
ducer."  I  believe  there  lies  between  the  two  extreme  poshxM 
held  by  tiw  daetriitmrts  a  line  of  poli<y  safer  for  the  Treasury, 
and  wiser  for  tiie  country,  than  cither  would  marie  out.  Let  as 
begin  ^th  fiurts. 

Hie  govermnent  most  raise  an  annual  gold  revoute  of  about 
$tso/xx),ooo  for  the  interest  of  the  public  debt,  fas  tiw  sinkn^ 
fiiiid,  and  for  the  consular  and  dipkunatic  e^qteases.  This  is 
Ae  central  &ct  In  all  our  tariff  le^slati(Hi^  The  farther  fiKt; 
that  the  government  is  receiving  from  customs  duties  a  large 
surplus  above  tliat  sum,  proves  that  a  reduction  of  customs 
taxation  can  be  made  with  safety  to  the  Treasury. 

But  there  are  special  reasons  why  the  tariff  laws  should  be 
revised.  They  were  enacted  during  the  war,  under  the  pressure 
of  an  unusual  financial  necessity,  in  a  time  of  very  high  prices 
and  a  heavy  premium  on  gold.  From  March,  1861,  to  March, 
1867,  Congress  passed  no  less  than  thirteen  tariff  acts,  each 
having  special  reference  to  the  situation  of  affairs  at  the  time. 
Now  we  have  passed  from  war  to  peace,  and  the  conditions  are 
greatly  changed.  The  other  branch  of  our  system  of  taxation 
has  been  six  times  revised,  and  taxes  reduced,  since  the  war.  In 
the  mean  time,  the  tariff  has  been  almost  untouched,  and  is  now 
far  less  equitable  in  its  provisions  than  it  was  five  years  ago. 
Last  year,  for  the  first  time  since  the  war,  a  general  revision 
of  the  tariff  was  attempted;  but  the  bill  broke  down  under  the 
load  of  debate  before  half  its  pages  had  been  considered.  Near 
the  close  of  the  session,  however,  a  bill  passed  the  House  with- 
out debate,  under  the  previous  question,  which  became  a  law, 


THE   OHIO  CAMPAIGN  OF  1871.  749 

and  which  further  reduced  internal  taxes  by  the  amount  of 
$SS,0(X),000,  and  tariff  taxes  by  the  amount  of  $23,000,000. 
This  act  brought  great  relief  to  the  country,  but  was  partial 
and  incomplete  in  its  provisions.  Only  a  small  part  of  the  tariff 
laws  were  revised,  and  some  of  the  reductions  which  were  made 
left  their  provisions  more  unequal  than  before.  There  is  an- 
other consideration  outside  the  merits  of  the  case,  which  no 
political  party  can  ignore.  It  is  that  public  opinion  demands  a 
revision.  It  will  be  made  either  by  the  friends  or  by  the  enemies 
of  the  tariff  system.     Its  friends  should  control  the  work. 

This  is  not  the  occasion  to  discuss  details,  but  some  general 
indications  of  the  course  that  should  be  pursued  can  be  given. 
And  I  mention,  first,  that  some  promises  made  by  Congress 
during  the  war  ought  to  be  redeemed,  or  a  good  excuse  should 
be  given  for  not  redeeming  them.  For  example,  among  the 
enormous  burdens  imposed  by  the  war  was  an  internal  tax  of 
six  per  cent  on  the  value  of  all  articles  manufactured  by  our 
people.  In  the  year  1866,  this  tax  alone,  exclusive  of  the  tax 
on  spirits  and  tobacco,  produced  $130,000,000.  That  vast  sum 
of  money  was  paid  into  the  treasury  by  our  manufacturers  out 
of  their  net  earnings.  At  the  time  this  tax  was  imposed,  the 
manufacturers  called  the  attention  of  Congress  to  the  fact  that  it 
unbalanced  the  adjustment  of  tariff  rates,  and  neutralized,  by  its 
whole  amount,  the  protection  they  had  before  enjoyed.  Accord- 
ingly, an  additional  duty  was  imposed  on  imported  articles  which 
competed  with  home  manufactures;  and  Mr.  Morrill,  of  Ver- 
mont, and  other  leading  members  of  Congress,  declared  at  the 
time  that  this  additional  duty  was  only  temporary,  and  intended 
solely  as  a  compensation  for  the  six  per  cent  internal  tax.  Now 
this  internal  tax  has  been  wholly  removed,  but  the  compensating 
tariff  rates  remain  untouched,  except  in  a  few  instances  where 
they  were  modified  by  the  act  of  July,  1870. 

Again,  there  are  some  rates  so  excessive,  and  in  the  changed 
condition  of  affairs  so  indefensible,  that  their  retention  operates 
to  the  prejudice  of  the  whole  system.  Take  salt  as  an  example. 
Before  the  war,  it  was  almost  dutyfree,  the  rate  being  a  cent  and 
a  half  a  bushel.  During  the  war,  to  meet  the  necessities  of  the 
government,  and  to  aid  the  manufacturers  of  salt,  the  rate  was 
increased  from  time  to  time  to  eighteen  and  twenty-four  cents 
on  a  hundred  pounds,  where  it  now  stands.  In  consequence 
of  the  fall  in  prices,  and  the  changed  conditions  of  trade,  that 


750  THE   OHIO   CAMPAIGN  OF  1871. 

rate  amounts  to  more  than  one  hundred  per  cent  In  gold.     Thftfl 
three  cities  of  St.  Louis,  Chicago,  and  Cincinnati  bought  and] 
distributed  more   tlian    300,000,000  pounds    of  salt  during  the! 
last  year,  equal  to  nearly  half  of  the  whole  quantity  importedcH 
In  this  case  it  cannot  be  denied  that  the  duty  has  largely  in'nl 
creased  the  price  of  the  salt  consumed  by  our  people.     Thia'# 
increase  ought  to  be  borne  with  patience  if  the  good  people  ofT 
the  country  and  tlie  wants  of  the  Treasury  required  it.     Hut  so.^ 
far  were  the  salt  manufacturers  from  needing  this  high  rate  a 
protection,  that,  as  long  ago  as  December,  1869.  the  Onondaga^ 
Company,  of  New  York,  were  offering  their  salt  in  Toronto  fori 
$1.35  per  barrel,  while  at  the  same  time  not  a  barrel  could  bel 
bought  anywhere  south  of  the  Lakes  for  less  than  $2.45  in  cur-  f 
rency,  or  $1.94  in  gold.     The  special  champions  of  this  interest  I 
succeeded  in  preventing  any  reduction  of  the  rate  in  the  act  of  J 
July,   1870.     They  ought  to  have  foreseen  the  reaction  which  f 
followed.     When,  on  the  18th  of  March  last,  the  question  came^l 
to  a  direct  vote,  and  the  only  choice  lay  between  leaving  the  I 
duty  as  it  was  and   repealing  it  altogether,  the  House  of  Repre-  I 
sentativcs  voted  for  the  repeal  by   147  yeas  to  47  nays.     But  I 
the  Senate  did  not  act,  and  the  high  rate  continues.     Neither 
the  principles  of  protection  nor  of  common  justice  will  tolerate 
a  rate  of  duty  which,  after  the  cost  of  transportation  has  been 
paid,  puts  American  salt  into  the  free-trade  markets  of  Canada 
at  a  lower  price  than  our  people  can  buy  it. 

The  recent  history  of  the  duty  on  coal  affords  another  equally 
forcible  illustration  of  the  folly  of  retaining  the  tax  on  an  article 
when  it  confers  so  small  a  benefit  and  offends  so  large  a  num- 
ber of  people. 

Again,  there  are  duties  which  are  positively  injurious  to  home 
industry.  Take  the  hat  manufacture,  for  example.  Nearly  all 
the  material  of  which  hats  are  made  must  be  obtained  from 
abroad,  but  they  bear  a  much  higher  rate  of  duty  than  is  levied 
on  the  imported  hat  itself.  This  of  course  injures  the  manu- 
facturer and  increases  the  cost  of  the  consumer,  and  puts  but 
little  money  into  the  Treasury. 

If  I  were  seeking  to  destroy  the  whole  system  of  protection, 
I  could  devise  no  means  more  certain  to  accomplish  my  pur- 
pose than  to  retain  unchanged  such  taxes  as  these.  I  ear- 
nestly warn  you,  fellow-citizens,  that  we  are  in  imminent  danger 
of  repeating  again  the  old    folly  of  dividing  our  people  into 


THE   OHIO  CAMPAIGN  OF  1871.  75 1 

two  hostile  camps ;  —  one  determined  to  resist  any  revision 
of  the  tariff,  whether  for  the  sake  of  reducing  the  amount  of 
taxation,  for  the  more  equitable  distribution  of  burdens,  or  for 
the  removal  of  unjust  and  anomalous  provisions ;  and  the  other, 
striking  indiscriminately  at  the  whole  tariff  system,  without  re- 
gard to  the  great  industries  which  have  been  built  up  under  its 
influence.  Within  the  last  half-century  the  industry  and  busi- 
ness of  this  country  have  again  and  again  been  tossed  back  and 
forth  between  these  opposing  factions,  and  each  in  turn  has 
brought  on  a  reaction.  In  the  light  of  our  past  history  it  will 
be  a  crime  if  we  now  repeat  the  folly.  Business  needs  stability, 
and  extremes  are  always  unstable. 

The  partial  revision  of  1 870,  which  took  effect  on  the  ist  of 
January  last,  has  borne  good  fruits.  One  hundred  and  fifty 
articles  were  placed  on  the  free  list,  and  the  rates  of  some 
others  were  reduced.  Yet  the  Treasury  received  from  the  tariff 
$11,000,000  more  during  the  fiscal  year  ending  June  30,  187 1, 
then  in  the  previous  year.  The  reasons  which  justified  that  act 
require  still  more  strongly  the  continuance  of  the  work.  I  be- 
lieve this  revision  can  be  made,  and  should  be  made,  not  only 
without  injury  to  American  industry,  but  to  its  benefit.  I  use 
the  word  industry  in  its  broad  and  proper  meaning.  It  is  labor 
in  any  form  that  gives  value  to  the  elements  of  nature,  either  by 
extracting  them  from  the  earth,  the  air,  or  the  sea,  or  by  modi- 
fying their  forms,  transporting  them  to  market,  or  in  any  way 
making  them  better  fitted  for  the  use  of  man. 

In  the  work  of  tariff  revision  it  is  eminently  safe  to  trust  the 
Republican  party,  and  eminently  dangerous  to  trust  their  oppo- 
nents. The  Democracy  seem  to  hate  the  present  tariff  system, 
because  Republicans  made  it.  They  denounce  it  as  robbery, 
and  yet  their  representatives  voted  almost  unanimously  against 
the  act  which  reduced  the  customs  tax  $23,000,000.  In  the 
hands  of  its  friends,  the  system  will  not  be  destroyed,  but  will 
be  amended,  and  made  to  conform  to  the  wants  of  the  time 
and  to  the  most  enlightened  financial  policy.  It  is  true,  there 
are  wide  differences  among  Republicans  themselves  on  the 
theoretical  and  practical  aspects  of  this  subject;  but  I  cannot 
doubt  that,  with  wise  forbearance  toward  each  other,  and  an 
earnest  regard  for  the  public  good,  the  study  of  this  subject 
will  lead  to  an  adjustment,  not  violent  and  revolutionary,  but 
just  and  conservative,  in  the  better  meaning  of  that  word. 


752  THE   OHIO   CAMPAIGN  OF  1S71.  I 

Though  I  had  read  tlie  currency  and  debt  resolutions  of  the 
late  Domocratic  Convention,  I  looked  upon  them  as  a  sort  of 
post  morietH  eulogy  of  an  exploded  doctrine,  and  designed 
merely  as  a  compliment  to  Mr.  Pendleton,  the  distinguished 
chairman  of  the  Convention.  I  was  therefore  surprised  to  find 
that  General  Ewing,  in  his  recent  speech  at  Columbus,  has 
treated  the  resolutions  seriously,  as  living  articles  of  Demo- 
cratic faith.  General  Ewing,  for  himself  and  his  party  in  Ohio, 
still  insists  on  paying  the  five-twenty  bond.s  in  greenbacks. 
Body-snatching  was  never  regarded  as  a  specially  cheerful 
business,  and  to  exhume  and  reclothe  the  dead  body  of  this 
rascality  requires  cxhaustless  resources  of  cheerfulness,  ner\-e,  , 
and  stomach.  While  1  admire  the  courage  and  ability  of  the  ] 
General,  I  cuinot  allow  some  of  bis  atatemeatt  to  go  ancoB- 
tradicted. 

He  says  that  tlie  Republicans  generally  fovored  the  pqnnent 
of  these  bonds  in  greenbacks  until  Gennal  Grant  was,  iou^pt- 
rated  President,  and  then  turned  round  and  insisted  diat  diqr 
should  be  paid  in  gold.  It  is  true  that,  iriien  this  question  was 
first  raised,  there 'was  some  difference  of  opinion  among  the 
Republicans  in  regard  to  the  letter  of  the  law,  and  some  were 
disposed  to  take  advantage  of  a  possible  interpretation  that 
would  make  the  outstanding  greenbacks  receivable  for  bonds, 
dollar  for  dollar;  but  the  National  Republican  Convention  of 
1868  brushed  aside  all  subtile  casuistry,  and  resolved  to  pre- 
serve inviolate  the  public  faith  by  keeping  both  the  letter  and 
the  spirit  of  the  law.  I  will  not  restate  the  argument,  but  I  will 
call  the  attention  of  our  Democratic  friends  to  a  single  fact. 

In  the  House  of  Representatives,  July  23,  1868,  in  reply  to 
the  late  Mr.  Stevens,  of  Pennsylvania,  I  reviewed  at  length  the 
proceedings  of  Congress  in  regard  to  the  passage  of  the  act 
of  February  25,  1865,  which  authorized  the  five-twenty  loan, 
quoting  the  remarks  made  by  different  members  of  Congress 
at  the  time  of  its  passage  in  regard  to  the  mode  of  payment  of 
the  loan.  After  giving  date  and  page  for  all  the  citations,  I 
summed  up  the  result  as  follows ;  "  I  have  carefully  gone  over 
all  the  proceedings,  as  recorded  in  the  Globe  and  in  the  Jour- 
nal of  the  House,  and  I  have  not  found  an  intimation  made, 
directly  or  indirectly,  by  any  member,  that  it  was  ever  dreamed 
the  principal  of  these  bonds  could  be  paid  in  anything  but 
gold.     On  the  contrary,  all  who  did  refer  to  the  subject  spoke 


THE   OHIO  CAMPAIGN  OF  iSji.  7 $3 

in  the  most  positive  terms,  that,  as  a  matter  of  course,  they 
were  payable  in  gold."^  All  parties  were  challenged  to  deny 
or  disprove  the  correctness  of  these  citations,  which  were  pub- 
lished broadcast  as  a  campaign  document  pending  the  Presi- 
dential election.  Up  to  this  time  no  attempt  has  been  made, 
either  to  deny  the  correctness  of  the  statement  I  have  just 
quoted,  or  to  dispute  the  further  facts  that  the  executive  offi- 
cers of  the  government  at  the  time  the  bonds  were  negotiated 
took  the  same  view  as  that  taken  by  Congress,  and  that  both 
parties  to  the  contract  understood  its  terms  to  stipulate  pay- 
ment in  coin.  The  national  conscience  approved  the  position 
of  the  Republican  party  in  1868,  and  the  subsequent  enhance- 
ment of  the  public  credit  proved  again  the  old  truth,  that,  in 
the  long  run,  honesty  is  cheaper  than  the  most  skilfully  dis- 
guised rascality. 

But  the  most  remarkable  feature  of  Democratic  finance  is  that 
clause  of  the  platform  which  General  Ewing  calls  the  "  finan- 
cial new  departure,"  and  which  he  seems  to  regard  as  a  dis- 
covery of  great  value.  Justice  to  its  author  should  have  led  the 
Convention  to  inform  their  followers  that  this  plan  is  borrowed 
(though  bungled  in  the  borrowing)  from  that  ingenious  financier, 
Mr.  B.  F.  Butler,  who  proclaimed  it  in  a  speech  in  Congress, 
several  months  ago,  as  a  device  to  save  the  nation  from  what 
he  called  "  the  barbarism  of  gold  and  silver "  as  a  circulating 
medium.  The  new  plan  proposes,  first,  to  issue  greenbacks  and 
cancel  five-twenty  bonds,  and  then  to'  issue  a  three  per  cent 
bond,  which  people  may  take  in  exchange  for  their  greenbacks. 
These  two  classes  of  paper  are  to  be  geared  together  by  a  kind 
of  double  back-action  arrangement,  which  will  allow  a  man  to 
change  his  investment  from  one  to  the  other  at  his  pleasure. 
The  plan  has  been  strongly  approved  by  the  brokers  of  New 
York  City,  who  will  be  glad  to  have  the  government  pay  inter- 
est on  their  capital  when  they  cannot  themselves  employ  it  in 
speculation.  This  new  financial  device  has  two  important  as- 
pects: first,  its  relation  to  the  public  debt  and  the  Treasury; 
and,  second,  to  the  currency  and  the  industry  and  commercial 
interests  of  the  people.  . 

So  far  as  it  relates  to  the  government  and  its  creditors,  it  is  a 
simple  proposition  to  repudiate  half  the  interest  of  the  public 
debt  altogether,  and  to  pay  the  other  half  in  currency  greatly 

1  See  Speech  on  "  Mr.  Stevens  and  the  Five-Twenty  Bonds,"  ant^t  p.  356. 
VOL.  I.  43 


^.m^Aimmim^a^ 


1 


7S4  THE   OHIO   CAMPAIGN  OF  iSji. 

more  depreciated  than  any  we  now  have.  I  venture  to  suggest 
to  these  gentlemen  that  the  cost  of  printing  and  engraving  the 
new  bonds,  and  the  expense  and  trouble  of  exchanging  them 
for  the  old,  can  be  avoided  by  the  passage  of  a  simple  act  to 
the -following  effect:  "Be  it  ettacted.  etc..  That  the  Treasurer 
of  the  United  States  shall  hereafter  pay  but  three  per  cent  per 
annum  in  currency,  as  interest  on  the  outstanding  obligations  of 
the  United  States,  known  as  five-twenty-bonds,  in  iieu  of  the 
six  per  cent  in  gold  now  required  by  law;  said  bonds  to  be 
exchanged  at  par  for  greenbacks.  This  act  shall  take  effect 
from  and  after  its  passage,  every  law,  obligation,  or  contract  of 
the  United  States  to  the  contrary  notwithstanding,"  This  would 
certainly  accomplish  the  object  proposed,  and  it  is  as  easily 
understood  as  any  other  form  of  robbery. 

The  effect  of  this  scheme  on  the  currency  would  be  as  disas- 
trous to  the  business  of  the  country  as  its  dishonesty  would  be 
to  the  honor  and  credit  of  the  nation.  General  Ewing  thinks 
that,  to  effect  the  conversion  of  the  bonds  and  to  meet  the  wants 
of  trade,  a  thousand  millions  of  greenbacks  will  be  sufficient  at 
first ;  but  his  generous  and  philanthropic  nature  is  not  to  be  lim- 
ited by  that  small  measure  of  blessing,  and  so,  to  meet  the  rem- 
nant of  interest  not  exploited  away  by  the  billion  issue,  he  will 
emit  an  additional  twenty-five  millions  each  year,  and  thus  make 
the  printing-press  pay  our  interest  This  plan  calls  to  mind 
the  mad  days  of  Continental  money,  when  a  member  of  the  old 
Continental  Congress  exclaimed,  "  Do  you  think,  gentlemen, 
that  I  will  consent  to  load  my  constituents  with  taxes,  when  we 
can  send  to  our  printer  and  get  a  wagon-load  of  money,  one 
quire  of  which  will  pay  for  the  whole?  "  General  Ewing  has 
quite  eclipsed  the  wisdom  of  that  member  of  an  early  New 
England  legislature,  who  proposed  to  abolish  all  taxes  and  pay 
the  expenses  of  the  State  out  of  the  treasury! 

But  the  General's  philanthropy  does  not  stop  with  printing 
the  interest  of  the  debt  out  of  existence.  He  says:  "  But  we 
are  told  the  legal  tenders  will  be  a  debt  outstanding  when  all 
the  bonds  are  paid.  They  will  be  no  debt  in  any  proper  sense  of 
the  word ;  "  for,  he  continues,  "  the  government  will  keep  them 
in  circulation  with  an  annual  increase  sufficient  to  furnish  the 
people  with  money  and  keep  down  interest,  and  thus  the  curse 
of  the  debt  will  turn  to  a  blessing."  It  requires  more  than 
ordinary  courage  to  run  such  a  tilt,  not  only  against  all  the  set- 


THE  OHIO  CAMPAIGN  OF  1871.  755 

tied  maxims  of  political  economy,  but  also  against  the  multipli- 
cation table  itself. 

The  General  assumes  that  to  increase  the  volume  of  currency 
will  reduce  the  rate  of  interest.  Both  history  and  economical 
science  are  against  him.  In  every  country  which  is  cursed  with 
depreciated  paper  money,  the  rate  of  interest  is  higher  than  in 
specie-paying  countries.  The  rate  does  not  rise  as  the  imme- 
diate consequence  of  an  increased  volume  of  currency,  but 
because  of  the  greater  risk  to  which  the  lender  is  exposed  on 
account  of  the  disturbance  and  uncertainty  of  value  caused  by 
the  increase.  Almost  in  the  exact  ratio  of  our  return  towards 
specie  values,  we  have  seen  the  rate  of  interest  coming  down, 
and  we  now  see  the  government  refunding  its  debt  at  five  per 
cent.  Because  confidence  is  returning  to  business,  prices  are 
coming  down  toward  their  old  level.  General  Ewing  wholly 
ignores  the  distinction  between  capital  and  money.  He  seems 
to  think  that,  should  the  Treasury  print  a  ton  of  greenbacks,  the 
people  will  have  that  much  additional  capital  to  lend.  But  the 
people  can  only  get  this  ton  of  paper  by  buying  it  and  paying 
for  it,  and  the  purchase  will  neither  increase  their  capital  nor 
their  power  to  lend.  No  principle  is  better  settled  than  this, 
that  the  rate  of  interest  depends,  not  upon  the  amount  of  cur- 
rency in  circulation,  but  upon  the  security  or  insecurity  of 
investments,  the  demand  for  loans,  and  the  supply  of  surplus 
capital  which  the  owners  are  willing  to  lend. 

General  Ewing  also  complains  that  the  country  has  not  cur- 
rency enough  for  its  business.  I  answer  him  by  the  fact,  that 
of  the  $54,000,000  of  national  bank  currency  offered  to  the  peo- 
ple by  the  act  of  July,  1870,  less  than  $20,000,000  has  been 
called  for.  That  fact  has  staggered  and  silenced  all  the  infla- 
tionists except  General  Ewing ;  and  I  do  not  know  of  one  peti- 
tion being  sent  to  Congress  for  an  increase  of  the  currency 
during  the  last  session.* 

It  is  a  delusion  and  a  snare  to  suppose  that  inflation  will  ben- 
efit the  business  of  the  country.  Since  the  inauguration  of 
General  Grant  the  purchasing  power  of  the  currency  has  in- 
creased twenty-one  per  cent,  in  consequence  of  its  enhanced 
value.  The  $700,000,000  of  outstanding  currency  held  by  the 
people  is  now  worth  $100,000,000  more  in  gold  than  it  was  in 
March,  1869.     We  have  been  slowly  making  our  way  back  to 

^  See  introductory  note  to  "  Currency  and  the  Banks,"  June  7, 1870,  anUy  p.  543. 


756  THE   OHIO   CAMPAIGN  OF  1871 


solid  values  and  to  the  steady  industries  of  peace.  The  Democ- 
racy of  Ohio  propose  to  push  us  out  again  upon  the  sea  of  paper 
money,  on  whose  wave's  we  must  toss  more  wildly  than  ever. 
Our  money  is  no  longer  to  be  the  money  of  the  world.  Though 
our  trade  of  a  billion  a  year  with  foreign  nations  must  be  in  gold 
and  silver,  yet  among  ourselves  we  are  to  have  a  debased  and 
irredeemable  paper  currency,  whose  volume  and  value  are  to 
depend  upon  the  folly  and  caprices  of  political  parties,  and  upon 
the  accident  of  a  vote  in  Congress.  Wc  are  invited  to  re-enact 
the  folly  of  assignats  and  Continental  money.  And  this  is  the 
policy  of  a  party  that  preaches  loudly  against  the  dangers  of 
centralization  !  When  the  government  turns  banker,  and  when 
the  value  of  every  product  is  made  to  depend  upon  a  few  men 
at  Washington,  we  shall  indeed  have  a  most  dangerous  centrali- 
zation of  power.  This  is  the  policy  of  the  party  that  still  boasts 
of  Jefferson  as  their  father. — Jefferson,  who  said,  in  the  ripeness 
of  his  wisdom,  "  That  paper  money  has  some  advantages  is  ad- 
mitted; but  that  its  abuses  are  inevitable,  and,  by  breaking  up 
the  measure  of  value,  make  a  lottery  of  all  private  property,  can- 
not be  denied." 

Lord  Karnes  tells  us  there  is  a  sixth  sense  in  man,  which  be 
proposed  to  call  the  sense  of  completeness.  It  must  have  been 
the  exercise  of  this  sixth  sense  that  led  the  Democratic  Con- 
vention to  conclude  the  financial  new  departure  resolution  with 
a  declaration  that  the  true  way  to  resume  specie  payments  is  to 
make  customs  duties  payable  in  currency.  And  this  after  they 
had  in  the  previous  paragraph  resolved  in  favor  of  a  currency 
which  is  never  to  be  redeemed !  It  has  never  been  my  fortune 
to  see  another  twenty  lines  of  printed  paper  which  contained  so 
great  an  amount  of  stupid  absurdity,  combined  with  so  much 
shameless  and  infamous  rascality,  as  is  found  in  the  twelfUi  res- 
olution of  the  Democratic  pFatform, 

Concerning  the  internal  troubles  of  the  Ohio  Democracy 
growing  out  of  the  count  of  their  tellers  at  the  late  Convention, 
I  have  nothing  to  say.  That  affair  is  of  the  nature  of  a  family 
secret,  which  Colonel  Connell  and  other  Democratic  leaders 
have  a  better  right  to  discuss  than  I  have.  The  Republican 
party  cheerfully  accept  Colonel  George  W.  McCook  as  a  Dem- 
ocratic nominee,  and  cordially  welcome  him  to  the  field  of 
debate.  There  is,  however,  another  branch  of  their  family 
troubles  which  is  of  sufficient  public  interest  to  be  made  a  topic 


THE  OHIO  CAMPAIGN  OF  1871.  757 

of  debate  in  this  campaign.  I  allude,  of  course,  to  the  new  de- 
parture on  the  subject  of  the  late  constitutional  amendments. 
General  Ewing  thinks  the  Republicans  are  alarmed  at  this  **  new 
departure."  I  assure  him  he  is  quite  mistaken.  On  the  con- 
trary, they  heartily  rejoice  to  know  that  at  last  a  part  of  the 
Democracy  renounce  their  false  but  oft-repeated  assertion,  that 
these  "  constitutional  amendments  are  fraudulent,  revolutionary, 
and  void."  If  the  confession  is  sincere,  so  much  the  better,  for 
it  helps  to  secure  the  fruits  of  the  war  and  make  permanent  the 
policy  for  which  Republicans  have  so  long  labored.  I  wish  the 
confession  had  been  more  general  and  more  sincere.  I  cannot 
forget  that  one  hundred  and  twenty-nine  members  of  the  Con- 
vention not  only  refused  to  confess,  but  vehemently  denounced 
the  confession  as  false  to  the  party  and  false  to  history. 
Though  the  Democracy  of  several  Northern  States  have  taken 
the  new  departure,  yet  Kentucky  repudiates  it,  and  the  Demo- 
cratic leaders  of  the  whole  South  scorn  it.  Jefferson  Davis  says 
he  has  nothing  to  retract,  nothing  to  admit,  no  terms  to  make, 
and  that  the  ideas  of  the  Rebellion  will  yet  triumph.  He  ex* 
horts  the  South  to  hold  on  in  their  hate  and  rage  until  divisions 
among  Northern  politicians  make  it  possible  for  the  lost  cause 
to  triumph.  Robert  Toombs  denounces  this  new  departure  in 
his  old  style  of  fierceness,  and  says  the  South  will  be  ready  to 
fight  again  sooner  than  the  people  imagine,  and  that  he  ex- 
pects to  live  long  enough  to  see  them  conquer  their  indepen- 
dence. There  is  a  kind  of  heroism  in  that  devotion,  even  to 
a  bad  cause,  which  leads  men  to  stand  by  their  own  conduct, 
and  voluntarily  perish  with  their  associates  in  crime.  It  re- 
minds us  of  those  old  Romans,  who,  having  rebelled  against 
their  country  and  failed  in  their  rebellion,  fell  on  their  own 
swords.  But  I  quite  agree  with  Colonel  Connell,  that  self- 
martyrdom  in  the  hope  of  exciting  popular  sympathy  is  con- 
temptible. We  admire  the  spirit  of  the  Roman  Scaevola,  who, 
in  contempt  of  the  torture  and  death  that  threatened  him,  held 
his  own  hand  in  the  fire  until  it  was  burned  off;  but  we  despise 
a  political  party  that  puts  itself  into  purgatorial  fires  for  the 
sake  of  exciting  pity  for  its  suffering,  and  to  secure  the  plasters 
of  office  to  heal  its  blisters.  For  the  sake  of  the  country  and 
the  truth,  I  rejoice  that  so  large  a  number  of  Democrats  have 
professed  repentance  on  this  subject.  As  a  means  of  regain- 
ing power,  it  has  been  done  too  grudgingly,  and  it  has  come 


7S8  THE   OHIO  CAMPA/GiV  OF  1871. 

too  late.  Borrowing  a  phrase  from  the  vigorous  language 
of  Colonel  Connell,  it  has  put  the  party  "  on  the  cutty-stool," 
but  will  not  place  them  in  the  chair  of  sUte.  Macaulay  says 
of  Charles  II.;  "  He  was  crowned  in  his  youth  with  the  Co%-e- 
nant  in  his  hand;  he  died  at  last  with  the  Host  sticking  in  his 
throat.  His  whole  life  had  been  a  falsehood,  and  his  death- 
bed confession  neither  injured  the  Protestants  nor  helped  the 
Catholics,  but  was  a  scandal  to  religion."  I  will  not  say  that 
the  Democracy  is  dying,  but  their  confession  was  very  sudden, 
and  it  is  manifest  that  the  doctrine  of  the  new  departure  "  sticks 
in  their  throats,"  Vallandigham  was  right  when,  in  the  last 
political  speech  of  his  life,  he  told  his  party  that  in  their  recent 
history  they  had  repeated  the  story  of  the  valley  of  dry  bones. 
Looking  out  over  the  whole  party,  recounting  its  failures  and 
defeats  and  dcadncss,  he  exclaimed.  "Can  these  bones  live?" 
He  expressed  the  hope  that  the  new  departure  would  reanimate 
the  dry  bones  and  make  them  rise  up  again  a  mighty  host;  but 
it  has  made  only  a  ghostly  rattling  among  the  skeletons, — 
merely  this  and  nothing  more. 

And  now,  fellow-citizens,  the  two  parties,  with  their  records, 
professions,  and  certificates  of  character,  are  before  you.  During 
the  last  ten  years  the  Democratic  party  has  appeared  in  almost 
every  conceivable  guise  and  disguise.  In  Ohio  it  has  tried 
every  style  of  candidate,  from  Secessionist  to  soldier.  As  a 
national  party  it  has  attempted  to  modify  its  doctrines  to  suit 
customs  and  localities,  and  in  attempting  to  make  itself  all 
things  to  all  men,  it  has  justly  lost  the  confidence  of  the  people. 
Each  year  their  old  doctrine  of  Secession  and  their  anti-national 
spirit  have  pervaded  and  vitiated  their  whole  organization,  as 
bilgewater  in  the  hold  of  a  ship  taints  the  cargo  and  infects 
the  crew.  For  them,  as  for  the  ship,  the  public  safety  demands 
disinfectants  and  a  long  quarantine.  Every  year  has  witnessed 
the  utter  explosion  of  some  favorite  dogma  of  that  party.  Read 
over  the  dreary  catalogue  of  their  doctrines  and  declarations 
for  the  last  ten  years,  and  you  will  find  that  at  least  three  out  of 
every  four  are  utterly  dead.  Recall  a  few  out  of  the  many  ex- 
amples that  might  be  given.  The  States  so  sovereign  that,  even 
should  they  make  war  on  the  Union,  the  nation  has  no  right  to 
coerce  them  into  obedience.  Dead !  The  war  for  the  Union  a 
failure.  Dead  I  The  laws  that  called  soldiers  into  the  field  un- 
constitutional.   Dead  I     Slavery  a  beneficent,  divine  institution, 


THE   OHIO  CAMPAIGN  OF  187 1.  759 

which  the  nation  cannot  touch  in  war,  and  ought  not  to  abol- 
ish by  constitutional  enactment.  Dead !  The  negro  race  shall 
never  wear  the  uniform  of  a  soldier,  enjoy  the  protection  of  the 
laws,  nor  hold  the  ballot  of  a  citizen.  Dead  everywhere,  ex- 
cept in  the  councils  of  the  Ku-Klux !  The  unconstitutionality 
of  the  law  that  made  greenbacks  a  legal  tender,  and  the  predic- 
tion that  they  will  soon  be  more  worthless  than  the  paper  on 
which  they  are  printed.  Dead !  The  Fourteenth  and  Fif- 
teenth Amendments  fraudulent,  revolutionary,  and  void.  Dead ! 
the  Ohio  Democracy  are  this  fall  attending  its  funeral.  These 
and  many  more  of  their  fundamental  doctrines  are  as  dead  as 
the  constitution  and  laws  of  the  late  Confederate  States.  The 
simple  fact  is,  that  no  mere  change  of  costume,  attitude,  pro- 
fession, or  leadership  will  remove  the  ingrained  viciousness  of 
the  Democratic  organization.  It  has  outlived  its  epoch  and 
its  usefulness.  As  an  iceberg  holds  fast,  frozen  in  its  heart,  the 
d/bris  of  the  cliff  from  which  it  was  broken  off,  so  the  Demo- 
cratic party  holds  in  its  organization  the  broken  remnants  of 
slavery  and  rebellion,  and  all  the  passions  that  they  engendered. 
Perhaps  I  may  add  that,  as  the  iceberg,  drifting  away  under 
warmer  skies,  melts  into  mists  and  waves,  dropping  its  unsightly 
sediment  into  the  depths  of  the  sea,  so  only  may  the  Demo- 
cratic party,  by  dissolution,  mingle  its  better  elements  with  the 
general  mass  of  the  people,  and  sink  its  evil  out  of  sight. 

To  all  these  characteristics  the  Republican  party  presents 
the  most  striking  contrast.  It  differs  from  the  Democratic 
party  in  its  origin,  in  the  objects  it  pursues,  in  the  spirit  which 
animates  it,  and  even  in  the  character  of  its  faults.  It  originated 
in  those  sentiments  most  honorable  to  human  nature, — the  love 
of  justice,  and  the  conviction  that  the  nation  must  cease  to  be 
an  oppressor  or  perish.  It  won  its  first  victory  in  an  appeal 
to  the  conscience  of  the  nation.  It  earned  the  gratitude  of 
mankind  by  saving  the  nation's  life,  by  preserving  and  strength- 
ening the  bond  of  union,  and  by  securing  to  all  men  equality 
before  the  law.  Its  life  has  been  so  identified  with  the  public 
safety  and  the  public  faith,  that  its  success  at  the  polls  has  al- 
ways been  hailed,  in  war,  as  a  victory  over  the  enemy;  in  peace, 
as  a  triumph  for  our  credit  abroad  and  our  property  at  home. 
Its  past  achievements  need  not  be  rehearsed.  They  have  taken 
their  places  securely  and  forever  among  the  immortal  glories 
of  the  republic.  Time  will  not  dim,  but  rather  brighten  their 
lustre.      • 


76o  TBE   OHIO   CAMPAIGN  OF  1871. 

Most  of  the  doctrines  of  the  Republican  party  have  become 
the  fixed  and  irrevocable  policy  of  the  nation.  Success  has 
added  to  its  ranks  some  bad  elements,  —  some  men  without 
convictions,  who  always  drift  to  tlic  winning  side,  as  loose 
freight  rolls  with  the  lurch  of  the  ship.  Sometimes  the  party, 
in  its  pride  of  strength,  has  been  wrong-headed,  and  has  made 
mistakes.  In  some  quarters  corruption  has  crept  into  its  ranks. 
But  ■for  all  its  sins,  the  severest  criticisms  usually  come  from  its 
own  members.  The  greatest  peril  that  threatens  it  is  the  dan- 
ger that  it  may  be  satisfied  to  rest  upon  its  laurels,  and  forget 
that  the  conditions  of  national  life  are  forever  changing,  its 
wants  ever  new,  and  that  no  party  can  live  worthily  which  does 
not  continue  to  represent  the  noblest  aspirations  and  the  most 
enlightened  thoughts  of  its  time.  Let  it  not  fall  into  the  error 
of  relying  for  its  success  upon  the  greater  sins  and  follies  of 
its  antagonists.  Let  the  time  never  come  when  the  highest 
eulogy  that  can  be  pronounced  on  the  Republican  party  will  be 
that  it  is  not  so  bad  as  the  Democratic  party. 

Thus  stand  the  two  parties  to-day.  I  see  no  sufficient  reason 
why  the  popular  verdict  should  be  reversed  in  regard  to  cither 
of  them.  Eleven  years  ago  the  people  pronounced  the  sen- 
tence that  expelled  the  Democracy  from  power ;  ten  times  the 
Democracy  have  been  summoned  to  the  public  bar  to  show 
cause  why  that  sentence  should  be  revoked;  ten  times  they 
have  been  heard  by  a  patient  and  generous  people,  and  ten 
times  they  have  been  remanded  again  to  exile,  with  an  im- 
pressive exhortation  to  repentance  and  good  works.  With 
unhesitating  confidence  the  Republican  party  calls  again  for 
the  verdict. 


1 


I 


THE    FOURTEENTH    AMENDMENT    AND 

REPRESENTATION. 

REMARKS  MADE  IN   THE  HOUSE  OF  REPRESENTATIVES, 

December  12,  187 1. 


The  bearing  of  the  Fourteenth  Amendment  upon  the  apportionment 
of  Representatives  in  Congress  was  considered  by  Mr.  Garfield  in  his 
speech  upon  the  Ninth  Census,  delivered  December  16,  1869.  The 
Fifteenth  Amendment,  which  was  declared  in  a  proclamation  of  the 
Secretary  of  State,  dated  March  30,  1870,  to  have  been  duly  ratified, 
rendered  inoperative  the  Fourteenth,  in  so  far  as  that  related  to  the 
denial  or  abridgment  of  the  right  of  suffrage  on  account  of  race,  color, 
or  previous  condition  of  servitude.  Still  that  Amendment  reached  a 
large  number  of  cases  that  were  not  taken  into  the  account  when  the 
Fourteenth  Amendment  was  enacted.  In  some  remarks  upon  the  Ap- 
portionment Bill,  made  December  6,  187 1,  Mr.  Garfield  declared  that 
this  Amendment  had  radically  changed  the  basis  of  representation.  He 
stated  once  more  the  classes  who  were  denied  the  suffrage  in  the  various 
States,  and  said  Congress  would  have  to  wait,  before  passing  an  appor- 
tionment bill,  until  the  Census  Office  could  furnish  all  the  statistics  bear- 
ing upon  the  subject.  On  the  1 2th  of  December  he  made  the  following 
remarks  in  Committee  of  the  Whole.  It  may  be  added,  however,  that 
his  representations  were  unheeded,  and  that  the  Fourteenth  Amendment, 
in  so  far  as  respects  the  right  of  representation,  has  not  been  carried  out 
in  a  single  instance. 


MR.  CHAIRMAN,  —  The  language  of  this  Amendment 
seems  to  me  unfortunately  chosen,  and  I  do  not  believe 
that  those  who  put  it  into  the  Constitution  saw,  at  the  time,  the 
full  scope  and  extent  of  its  meaning.  It  was  intended  to  de- 
clare, simply,  that  in  any  State  where  suflTrage  was  denied  or 
abridged  on  account  of  race,  color,  or  previous  condition  of 
servitude,  representation  should  be  diminished  in  the  ratio  that 


762  THE  FOURTEENTH  AMENDMENT. 

the  number  of  male  citizens,  twenty-one  years  of  age  and  up- 
wards, to  whom  it  was  denied,  bore  to  the  total  number  of  such 
citizens  in  the  State.  And  that  was  a  wise  and  just  proposition. 
But  I  believe  that  when  the  article  was  pending  in  Congress, 
some  one  suggested,  in  the  spirit  of  a  similar  criticism  made 
by  Madison  in  the  Constitutional  Convention  of  1787,  that 
the  word  "  servitude  "  or  "'  slavery  "  ought  not  to  be  named  in 
the  Constitution  as  existing,  or  as  exercising  any  influence  on  the 
suffrage ;  and  hence  the  negative  form  was  adopted  to  avoid  the 
use  of  an  unpleasant  word-  But  in  adopting  the  negative  form, 
with  a  view  to  the  exclusion  of  only  two  classes,  they  did,  as  a 
matter  of  fact,  exclude  many  classes  who  were  manifestly  not  in 
the  minds  of  the  authors  of  the  Amendment  at  the  time.  Thus 
they  made  the  back  of  the  blade  as  sharp  as  the  edge.  The 
whole  case  is  a  striking  illustration  of  the  danger  of  attempting 
to  reach  an  object  indirectly,  when  there  is  a  direct  road  which 
leads  to  the  same  end. 

But,  Mr.  Chairman,  the  Constitution  is  here,  in  the  words  that 
have  been  quoted  several  times  during  this  debate.  Can  we 
obey  its  requirements?  If  so,  how?  Or  shall  we  neglect  them? 
The  gentleman  from  Pennsylvania  '  says  we  may  neglect  it,  be- 
cause the  Constitution  does  not  execute  itself,  and  Congress 
made  no  law  to  provide  for  taking  the  statistics  necessary  for  its 
execution.  I  wish  to  call  that  gentleman's  attention  to  a  matter 
of  history,  which,  I  think,  will  answer  his  argument. 

The  House  of  Representatives  passed,  at  the  beginning  of  the 
last  Congress,  a  very  elaborate  bill,  in  which  the  carrying  out 
of  this  specific  clause  of  the  Fourteenth  Amendment  was  pro- 
vided for,  and  the  method  prescribed  by  which  the  statistics 
called  for  under  the  clause  should  be  obtained.  That  bill  passed 
the  House  after  eleven  days'  debate,  but  the  Senate  came  to 
the  conclusion  that  the  old  law  for  taking  the  census,  the  law  of 
1850,  was  good  enough,  and  the  committee  which  had  charge 
of  the  subject  reported,  on  the  7th  of  February,  1870,  a  bill  as  a 
substitute  for  the  House  bill,  in  these  words:  "That  the  Secre- 
tary of  the  Interior  be  directed  so  to  change  the  schedules  and 
blanks  to  be  used  in  enumerating  the  inhabitants  of  the  United 
States- in  1870,  as  to  make  the  same  conform  to  the  Constitution 
of  the  United  States." 

These  words  were  proposed  as  a  substitute  for  the  House  bill 
'  Mr.  Mercur. 


THE  FOURTEENTH  AMENDMENT.  J63 

of  some  thirty  or  forty  pages.  After  a  long  debate  it  was  de- 
clared by  Senators  that  this  substitute  was  unnecessary;  not 
that,  as  my  friend  from  Pennsylvania  affirms,  the  Constitution 
would  not  execute  itself,  but  that  it  would  be  the  duty  of  the 
Secretary  of  the  Interior  to  make  his  schedules  conform  to  the 
changes  in  the  organic  law  without  any  new  act  of  Congress. 
This  view  was  discussed,  and  I  have  before  me  the  speech  of 
the  Senator  who  had  charge  of  the  bill.  That  Senator  expressed 
the  opinion  that  no  legislation  was  necessary,  and  that  the  Sec- 
retary of  the  Interior  must  consider  the  amendments  to  the 
Constitution  as  a  part  of  the  law  which  should  guide  him  in  his 
work.  The  Senate  agreed  to  this  view,  and  by  an  overwhelm- 
ing vote  laid  both  the  bill  of  the  House  and  the  Senate  substi- 
tute on  the  table.  That  substitute,  as  I  have  already  shown, 
required  the  Secretary  of  the  Interior  to  change  the  schedules 
and  rtiake  them  conform  to  the  Constitution.  We  thus  had 
from  the  Senate  a  solemn  declaration  that  in  their  judgment  no 
legislation  was  needed,  and  that  the  Secretary  of  the  Interior 
must  give  such  instructions,  and  must  make  such  changes  in 
the  schedules,  as  the  amendments  to  the  Constitution  required. 

Mr.  Willard.  I  desire  to  ask  the  gentleman  from  Ohio,  who  was  act- 
ing chairman  of  the  Committee  on  the  Census,  if,  in  his  judgment,  the 
present  census,  as  it  is  now  in  the  office  of  the  Secretary  of  the  Interior, 
does  not  contain  facts  which  will  enable  the  House  to  make  the  appor- 
tionment in  obedience  to  the  requirements  of  the  Constitutional  Amend- 
ment ?  Georgia,  for  instance,  requires  a  tax  to  be  paid  by  all  persons 
over  twenty-two  years  of  age.  Now,  the  census  will  show  how  many 
male  persons  over  twenty-two  years  of  age  there  are  in  Georgia.  A  fair 
constniction  will  bring  that  case  under  the  Amendment.  Will  not  the 
census  show  the  fact?  and  may  we  not  get  at  the  basis  of  apportionment 
there  by  deducting  that  number  ? 

I  shall  come  to  that  in  a  moment,  if  my  friend  will  allow  me. 
If  gentlemen  have  been  following  my  remarks,  they  will  see  that 
the  Secretary  of  the  Interior,  by  this  vote  of  the  Senate,  con- 
sidered himself  instructed  as  to  his  duties  in  the  premises.  Now, 
what  did  the  Secretary  proceed  to  do?  The  gentleman  from 
Pennsylvania  says  that  the  law  and  schedules  of  1850  were 
his  only  law,  and  that  he  had  no  right  to  change  them.  I 
call  his  attention  to  the  fact  that  the  Secretary  of  the  Inte- 
rior actually  dropped  out  of  the  census  of  1870  a  whole  sched- 
ule which  stands  in  the  law  of  1850,  which,  according  to  the 


gentleman's  view,  was  the  only  law  that  the  Secretary  had. 
How  could  he  drop  one  of  the  six  schedules  of  the  law  un- 
der which  he  was  acting?  I  answer,  for  the  manifest  reason 
that  that  schedule  required  him  to  lake  a  census  of  slaves,  and 
to  collect  special  statistics  in  reference  to  slaves.  But  by  the 
Thirteenth  Amendment  slavery  had  been  abolished,  and  he  was 
bound  to  Uke  notice  of  the  fact  and  govern  himself  accordingly. 
He  did  ver>-  properly  drop  that  schedule.  Now,  if  he  took  cog- 
nizance of  that  fact,  he  was  equally  bound  to  take  cognizance 
of  the  further  fact  that  the  basis  of  representation  had  been 
changed  by  the  Fourteenth  Amendment,  and  he  was  bound  to 
conform  his  schedule  to  this  change.  That  he  proceeded  to  do ; 
and  how?  He  knew  that  the  House  Committee  on  the  Ninth 
Census  had  examined  this  subject,  and  reported  a  method  of 
taking  the  census,  so  as  to  meet  the  demands  of  the  Fourteenth 
Amendment  as  far  as  practicable.  In  their  report  that  com- 
mittee say :  — 

"  After  much  reflection,  the  committee  could  devise  no  belter  way 
than  lo  add  to  the  family  schedule  a  column  for  recording  those  who 
are  voters,  and  another  wiili  ihis  heading,  copied  substantially  from  the 
Amendment :  '  Citizens  of  the  United  States,  being  twenty-one  years  of 
age,  whose  right  to  vole  is  denied  or  abridged  on  other  grounds  than 
rebellion  or  crime.'  It  may  be  objected  that  this  will  allow  the  citizen 
to  be  a  judge  of  the  law  as  well  as  the  feet,  and  that  it  will  be  difficult  to 
get  true  and  accurate  answers.  We  can  only  say  this  is  the  best  method 
that  has  been  suggested."  ' 

The  Secretary  of  the  Interior  adopted  these  suggestions  as 
being,  in  his  judgment,  the  best  method  that  he  could  take  to 
carry  out  this  clause  of  the  Constitution.  Those  two  columns, 
as  my  friend  from  Pennsylvania  has  said,  are  numbered  nine- 
teen and  twenty  in  the  Population  Schedule  which  was  used  by 
the  marshals  throughout  the  country.  The  Secretary  of  the 
Interior,  therefore,  considering  himself  instructed  by  the  Con- 
stitutional Amendment,  took  this  method  to  get  the  required 
proportion  from  which  to  find  the  representative  population  of 
the  United  States.  He  has  given  us  the  result  in  the  table  now 
before  us.  The  Secretary  says,  officially,  that  the  result  is  not 
satisfactory  nor  trustworthy.  I  presume  this  is  so,  for  the  ma- 
chinery of  the  old  law  was  wholly  inadequate  to  such  work. 
But,  correct  or  incorrect,  this  table  is  the  only  result  we  have 
1  Home  of  Representatives  Report  No.  3,  Jaoiuiy  18,  iS^  p.  53, 


THE  FOURTEENTH  AMENDMENT.  j6i 

or  can  get.  The  original  idea  of  the  census  was  for  the  very 
purpose  of  basing  the  representation  of  the  country  on  its 
results.  The  purpose,  and  the  only  purpose,  for  which  a  census 
was  authorized  by  the  Constitution,  was  to  apportion  represent- 
atives and  direct  taxes  among  the  people. 

Now  we  have  the  results  as  ascertained  under  the  Constitu- 
tion and  laws,  and,  however  imperfect  they  may  be  in  the 
judgment  of  any  gentleman,  they  form  our  only  basis  of  appor- 
tionment. In  my  judgment,  we  are  bound  to  do  one  of  two 
things:  either  to  refuse  to  obey  the  Fourteenth  Amendment 
according  to  the  results  obtained,  or  take  the  results  as  they 
come  and  make  them  the  basis  of  apportioning  representation. 
Now,  in  a  table  which  I  have  received  from  the  Census  Bureau, 
the  reductions  have  been  made  from  the  total  populations  of 
each  State,  according  to  the  proportion  of  their  disfranchised 
persons.  This  table  gives  the  following  information  for  each  of 
the  States:  Total  population;  Male  citizens  of  the  United 
States,  twenty-one  years  of  age  and  upwards;  Male  citizens 
twenty-one  years  of  age  and  upwards  whose  right  to  vote  is 
abridged  for  other  causes  than  rebellion  or  other  crime ;  Rep- 
resentative population,  etc.  These  are  the  totals  under  the 
above  heads,  following  the  same  order:  38,113,253;  8,314,805; 
40,380;  37*928,329. 

I  do  not  see  that  we  have  any  choice.  This  is  an  official 
report,  the  report  of  the  only  tribunal  that  the  Constitution 
knows  in  connection  with  this  subject.  If  that  tribunal  is 
wrong,  I  will  not  say  that  we  may  not  in  any  way  revise  it ;  for 
we  could  order  the  census  of  any  State  taken  over  again.  But 
if  we  apportion  the  representatives  this  winter,  and  obey  the 
Constitution,  we  cannot  go  outside  this  report  upon  any  unoffi- 
cial statistics  that  any  individual  may  present,  however  correct 
such  statistics  may  be.  It  seems  to  me  that  we  are  bound  to 
take  this  report  into  account;  and  I  hope  this  work  will  com- 
pel future  Congresses  to  provide  some  more  efficient  mode  for 
taking  those  statistics. 


APPENDIX. 


I. 

LETTER  TO  MAJOR-GENERAL  ROSECRANS. 

[The  copy  here  followed  is  the  originsil,  found  in  the  files  of  the  War  Department.] 

Through  the  winter  and  spring  of  1863,  the  Army  of  the  Cumberland, 
Major-General  W.  S.  Rosecrans  commanding,  had  its  headquarters  at  Mur- 
freesborough,  Tennessee.  The  President  and  the  war  authorities  early  in 
the  spring  became  very  anxious  that  the  General  should  move  against  the 
enemy.  General  Garfield,  who  was  Rosecrans's  Chief  of  Staff,  added  his 
urgency  to  the  urgency  of  the  authorities  at  Washington.  Rosecrans  said 
he  was  not  ready,  and  insisted  that  a  forward  movement  would  be  hazard- 
ous. Finally,  June  8,  he  sent  a  circular  letter  to  the  leading  generals  of 
the  army  calling  for  their  views.  When  the  replies  were  in,  General  Gar- 
field summarized  them,  and  stated  his  own  views  in  the  following  letter :  — 

Headquarters,  Department  of  the  Cumberland, 
Murfreesborough,  June  12,  1863. 

General,  —  In  your  confidential  letter  of  the  8th  instant  to  the  corps 
and  division  commanders  and  generals  of  cavaby  of  this  army,  there 
were  substantially  five  questions  propounded  for  their  consideration 
and  answer,  viz. :  — 

1.  Has  the  enemy  in  our  front  been  materially  weakened  by  detach- 
ments to  Johnston  or  elsewhere  ? 

2.  Can  this  army  advance  on  him  at  this  time  with  strong  reasonable 
chances  of  fighting  a  great  and  successful  battle  ? 

3.  Do  you  think  an  advance  of  our  army  at  present  likely  to  prevent 
additional  reinforcements  being  sent  against  General  Grant  by  the  enemy 
in  our  front  ? 

4.  Do  you  think  an  immediate  advance  of  this  army  advisable  ? 

5.  Do  you  think  an  ^ar/^  advance  advisable  ? 

Many  of  the  answers  to  these  questions  are  not  categorical,  and  can- 
not be  clearly  set  down  either  as  affirmative  or  negative.  Especially 
in  answer  to  the  first  question  there  is  much  indefiniteness,  resulting 


768  APPENDIX. 

from  the  difTereDce  of  judgment  as  to  how  great  a  detachment  could  be 

considered  a  "  material  reduction"  of  Bragg's  strength.  For  example, 
one  officer  thinks  it  has  been  reduced  ten  Uiousand,  bul  not  "  materially 
weakened."  Tlie  answers  to  the  second  question  arc  modified  in  some 
instances  by  the  opinion  that  the  Rebels  will  fall  back  behind  the 
Tetmessee  River,  and  thus  no  battle  can  be  fought,  either  successful  or 
unsuccessful.  So  far  as  these  opinions  can  be  stated  in  tabular  form, 
they  will  stand  thus  :  — 

y«.  No, 

Ansnera  to  first  question 6  II 

Answers  to  second  question a  it 

Answers  to  third  question 4  10 

Answers  to  fourth  question o  15 

Answers  to  fifth  question o  1 

On  the  fifth  question,  three  gave  it  as  their  opinion  that  this  army 
ought  to  advance  as  soon  as  VicksUurg  falls,  should  that  event  happen. 
The  following  is  a  summary  of  the  reasons  assigned  why  we  should  not 
at  this  time  advance  upon  the  enemy :  — 

1.  With  Hooker's  army  defeated,  and  Grant's  bending  all  its  energies 
in  a  yet  undecided  struggle,  it  is  bad  policy  to  risk  our  only  reserve 
array  to  the  chances  of  a  general  engagement,  A  failure  here  would 
have  most  disastrous  effects  on  otir  lines  of  communication,  and  on 
politics  in  the  loyal  States. 

3.  We  should  be  compelled  to  fight  the  enemy  on  his  own  ground, 
or  follow  him  in  a  fruitless  stem  chase  ;  or  if  we  attempted  to  outflank 
him  or  turn  his  position,  we  should  expose  our  line  of  communication 
and  run  the  risk  of  being  pushed  back  into  a  rough  coimtry,  well  known 
to  the  enemy  and  little  known  to  ourselves. 

3.  In  case  the  enemy  should  fall  back  without  accepting  battle,  he 
could  make  our  advance  very  slow,  and  with  a  comparatively  small  force 
posted  in  the  gaps  of  the  mountains  could  hold  us  back  while  he  crossed 
the  Tennessee  River,  where  he  would  be  measurably  secure  and  free  to 
send  reinforcements  to  Johnston,  His  forces  in  East  Tennessee  could 
seriously  harass  our  left  flank,  and  constantly  disturb  our  communications. 

4.  The  withdrawal  of  Butnside's  Ninth  Aimy  Corps  deprives  us  of 
an  important  reserve  and  flank  protection,  thus  increasing  the  difficulty 
of  an  advance. 

5.  General  Hurlburt  has  sent  the  most  of  his  forces  away  to  General 
Grant,  thus  leaving  West  Tennessee  imcovered,  and  laying  our  right  Sank 
and  rear  open  to  raids  of  the  enemy. 

The  following  incidental  opinions  are  expressed ;  — 

I.  One  ofllicer  thinks  it  probable  that  the  enemy  has  been  strength- 
ened rather  than  weakened,  and  that  he  (the  enemy)  would  hove  a 
reasonable  prospect  of  victory  in  a  general  battle. 


APPENDIX.  769 

2.  One  officer  believes  the  result  of  a  general  battle  would  be  doubt- 
ful, a  victory  barren,  and  a  defeat  most  disastrous. 

3.  Three  officers  believe  that  an  advance  would  bring  on  a  general 
engagement.    Three  others  believe  it  would  not. 

4.  Two  officers  express  the  opinion  that  the  chances  of  success  in  a 
general  battle  are  nearly  equal. 

5.  One  officer  expresses  the  belief  that  our  army  has  reached  its 
maximum  strength  and  efficiency,  and  that  inactivity  would  seriously 
impair  its  effectiveness. 

6.  Two  officers  say  that  an  increase  of  our  cavalry  by  about  six 
thousand  men  would  materially  change  the  aspect  of  our  affairs  and  give 
us  a  decided  advantage. 

In  addition  to  the  above  summary,  I  have  the  honor  to  submit  an 
estimate  of  the  strength  of  Bragg's  army,  gathered  from  all  the  data  I 
have  been  able  to  obtain,  including  the  estimate  of  the  General  Com- 
manding in  his  official  report  of  the  battle  of  Stone  River,  and  facts 
gathered  from  prisoners,  deserters,  scouts,  and  refugees,  and  from  Rebel 
newspapers.  After  the  battle  he  (Bragg)  consolidated  many  of  his  deci- 
mated regiments  and  irregular  organizations,  and  at  the  time  of  his 
sending  reinforcements  to  Johnston  his  army  had  reached  its  greatest 
effective  strength.  It  consisted  of  five  divisions  of  infantry,  composed  of 
ninety-four  regiments  and  two  independent  battalions  of  sharp-shooters ; 
say  ninety-five  regiments.  By  a  law  of  the  Confederate  Congress,  regi- 
ments are  consolidated  when  their  effective  strength  falls  below  two  hun- 
dred and  fifty  men.  Even  the  regiments  formed  by  such  consolidation 
(which  may  reasonably  be  regarded  as  the  fullest)  must  fall  below  five 
hundred  men.  I  am  satisfied  that  four  hundred  is  a  large  estimate  of 
the  average  strength. 

The  force  would  then  be  :  — 

Infantry,  95  regiments,  400  each 38,000 

Cavalry,  35  regiments,  say  500  each    ....'....  17,500 

Artillery,  26  batteries,  say  100  each 2,600 

Total "58^0 

This  force  has  been  reduced  by  detachments  to  Johnston.  It  is  as 
well  known  as  we  can  ever  expect  to  ascertain  such  facts,  that  three 
brigades  have  gone  from  McCown's  division,  and  two  or  three  from 
Breckinridge's,  say  two.  It  is  clear  that  there  are  now  but  four  infan- 
try divisions  in  Bragg's  army,  the  fourth  being  composed  of  firagments 
of  McCown*s  and  Breckinridge's  divisions,  and  must  be  much  smaller 
than  the  average.  Deducting  the  five  brigades,  and  supposing  them 
composed  of  only  four  regiments  each,  which  is  below  the  general 
average,  it  gives  an  infantry  reduction  of  twenty  regiments,  four  hundred 
each,  or  8,000,  leaving  a  remainder  of  30,000. 

VOL.  I.  49 


ifQ  APPENDIX. 

It  is  deazly  aacertained  tliat  at  least  tm>  brigades  otcmkf  have  been 
sent  fix>m  Van  Dom's  command  to  yGsmadppif  and  it  is  asserted  in  die 
Chattanooga  Rebel  of  June  txtli  that  General  Moigan's  oonunand  has 
been  permanently  detached  and  sent  to  Eastern  Kentndqr^  It  is  not 
certain^  known  how  large  his  divisicm  is,  bat  it  is  known  to  contain 
at  least  two  tvigades.  Taking  tins  minimum  as  tlie  &ct»  we  have  a  cav>» 
aby  reduction  of  four  brigades. 

Taking  the  lowest  estimate,  four  rt^giments  to.  die  brigade,  we  lunre  a 
reduction  by  detachment  of  sateen  regiments^  five  hnndred  each,  or 
89O00,  leaving  his  present  effective  cavalry  fince  9»5oa  With  die  nine 
brigades  of  the  two  armies  thus  detached  it  wilt  be  safe,  to  say  dieie 
have  gone:  — 

6  batteries,  &>  men  each 480 

Leaving  him  aa  batteries 3»i30 

Making  a  total  reduction  of ^    .    •  16^480 

And  leaving  of  the  three  arms  a  total  of 41,680 

In  this  estimate  of  Bragg's  present  strei^gtfa  I  have  {daced  aB  doubts  in 
his  iBLVOT,  and  I  have  no  doubt  that  my  estimate  is  considerably  beyond 
die  truth.  Genera]  Sieridan,  who  has  taken  great  pains  to  collect  evi- 
dence  on  this  point,  places  it  consideraUy  below  diese  figures.    But 

assuming  these  to  be  correct,  and  granting  what  is  still  more  improbable, 
that  Bragg  would  abandon  all  his  rear  posts  and  entirely  neglect  his 
communications,  and  could  bring  his  last  man  into  battle,  I  next  ask. 
What  have  we  with  which  to  oppose  him? 

The  last  official  report  of  effective  strength,  now  on  file  in  the  of- 
fice of  the  Assistant  Adjutant-General,  is  dated  June  nth  instant,  and 
shows  that  we  have  in  this  department,  omitting  all  officers  and  en- 
listed men  attached  to  department,  corps,  division,  and  brigade  head- 
quarters :  — 

1.  Infantry.  One  hundred  and  seventy-three  regiments ;  ten  battal- 
ions sharp-shooters ;  four  battalions  pioneers ;  and  one  regiment  of 
engineers  and  mechanics  ;  with  a  total  effective  strength  of  70,918. 

2.  Cavalry.  Twenty-seven  regiments  and  one  unattached  company ; 
11,813. 

3.  Artillery.  Forty-seven  and  a  half  batteries  field  artillery,  consisting 
of  two  hundred  and  ninety- two  guns  and  5,069  men,  making  a  grand 
total  of  87,800. 

Or,  leaving  out  all  commissioned  officers,  this  army  represents  82,767 
bayonets  and  sabres. 

Tliis  report  does  not  include  the  Fifth  Iowa  Cavalry,  six  hundred 
strong,  lately  armed;  nor  the  First  Wisconsin  Cavalry;  nor  Cobum's 
brigade  of  infantry  now  arming ;  nor  the  2,394  convalescents  now  on 
hght  duty  in  Fortress  Rosecrans. 


APPENDIX.  771 

There  are  detached  from  this  force  as  follows :  — 

At  Gallatin 969 

At  Carthage i,X49 

At  Fort  Donelson 1,485 

At  Clarks villa 1,138 

At  Nashville 7*292 

At  Franklin 900 

At  Lavergne 2,117 

Total i5»o5o 

With  these  posts  as  they  are,  and  leaving  2,500  efficient  men  in  ad- 
dition to  the  2,394  convalescents  to  hold  the  works  in  this  place,  there 
will  be  left  65,217  bayonets  and  sabres  to  throw  against  Bragg's  41,680. 

I  beg  leave  also  to  submit  the  following  considerations  :  — 

1.  Bragg's  army  is  now  weaker  than  it  has  been  since  the  battle  of 
Stone  River,  or  is  likely  to  be  again  for  the  present,  while  our  army  has 
reached  its  maximum  strength,  and  we  have  no  right  to  expect  further 
reinforcements  for  several  months,  if  at  all.  \ 

2.  Whatever  be  the  result  at  Vicksburg,  the  determination  of  its  fate 
will  give  large  reinforcements  to  Bragg.  If  Grant  is  successful,  his  army 
will  require  many  weeks  to  recover  from  the  shock  and  strain  of  his  late 
campaign,  while  Johnston  will  send  back  to  Bragg  a  force  sufficient  to 
insure  the  safety  of  Tennessee.  If  Grant  fails,  the  same  result  will  inevi- 
tably follow,  so  far  as  Bragg*s  army  is  concerned. 

3.  No  man  can  predict  with  certainty  the  result  of  any  battle,  how- 
ever great  the  disparity  of  numbers.  Such  results  are  in  the  hand  of 
God.  But,  viewing  the  question  in  the  light  of  human  calculation,  I 
refuse  to  entertain  a  doubt  that  this  army,  which  in  January  last  defeated 
Bragg's  superior  numbers,  can  overwhelm  his  present  greatly  inferior 
forces. 

4.  The  most  unfavorable  course  for  us  that  Bragg  could  take  would 
be  to  fall  back  without  giving  us  batde  ;  but  this  would  be  very  disastrous 
to  him.  Besides  the  loss  of  tnattriel  of  war,  and  the  abandonment  of 
the  rich  and  abundant  harvest  now  nearly  ripe  in  Central  Tennessee,  he 
would  lose  heavily  by  desertion.  It  is  well  known  that  a  wide-spread 
dissatisfaction  exists  among  his  Kentucky  and  Tennessee  troops.  They 
are  already  deserting  in  large  numbers.  A  retreat  would  greatly  increase 
both  the  desire  and  the  opportunity  for  desertion,  and  would  very  mate- 
rially reduce  his  physical  and  moral  strength.  While  it  would  lengthen 
our  communications,  it  would  give  us  possession  of  McMinnville,  and 
enable  us  to  threaten  Chattanooga  and  East  Tennessee ;  and  it  would 
not  be  unreasonable  to  expect  an  early  occupation  of  the  former  place. 

5.  But  the  chances  are  more  than  even  that  a  sudden  and  rapid 
movement  would  compel  a  general  engagement,  and  the  defeat  of  Bragg 
would  be  in  the  highest  degree  disastrous  to  the  Rebellion. 


772  APPENDIX. 

6.  The  turbulent  aspect  of  politics  in  the  loyal  Suics  renders  a  deci- 
sive blow  against  the  tnemy  at  this  time  of  the  highest  importance  to 
the  success  of  the  government  at  the  polls,  and  in  the  enforcement  of 
the  Conscription  Act. 

7-  The  government  and  the  Wax  Department  believe  that  this  array 
ought  to  move  upon  the  enemy,  'The  aimy  desires  it,  and  the  country 
is  anxiously  hoping  for  il. 

8.  Our  true  objective  point  is  the  Rebel  army,  whose  last  reserves 
arc  subsianiially  in  the  field,  and  an  effective  blow  will  crush  the  shell, 
and  soon  be  followed  by  the  collapse  of  the  Rebel  government. 

9-  You  have,  in  my  judgment,  wisely  delayed  a  general  movement 
hitherto,  till  your  arniy  could  be  noassed,  and  your  c-avalry  could  \ie 
mounted.  Your  mobile  forces  can  now  be  concentrated  in  twenty-four 
hours,  and  your  cavalry,  if  not  equal  in  numerical  strength  to  tliat  of  the 
enemy,  is  greatly  superior  in  efficiency  and  morale. 

For  these  reasons  I  believe  an  immediate  advance  of  all  our  available 
forces  is  desirable,  and,  under  the  providence  of  Goil,  will  be  successful. 
Very  respectfully,  your  obedient  servant, 

[Signed,]  J,  A.  Carheld, 

Brigadier-General,  Chief  of  Staff . 

MaJOR-GENERAL  Rosecrans,  Commanding  Difarlmcnt  ef  tkt  Cumberland. 


II. 

LETTER  TO  SECRETARY  CHASE. 

[The  following  letter  was  published  bjr  Mr.  J.  W.  Schuclcers,  June  ii,  i88»,  in  the 
New  York  Sun.] 

(Confidential.) 

Headquartbrs,  Department  op  the  Cuubbkland, 
Nashville,  July  ij,  1863. 

My  dear  Governor,  —  I  have  for  a  long  time  wanted  to  write  to  you, 
not  only  to  acknowledge  your  last  kind  letter,  but  also  to  say  some  things 
confidentially  on  the  movements  in  this  department ;  but  I  have  retrained 
hitherto  lest  I  di  injustice  to  a  good  man,  and  say  to  you  things  which 
were  better  left  unsaid.  We  have  now,  however,  reached  a  point  upon 
which  I  feel  it  proper,  and  also  due  to  that  kind  opinion  which  I  believe 
you  have  had  of  me,  to  acquaint  you  with  the  condition  of  affairs  here, 

I  cannot  conceal  &om  you  the  &ct,  that  I  have  been  greatly  tried  and 


APPENDIX.  773 

dissatisfied  with  the  slow  progress  that  we  have  made  in  tb's  department 
since  the  battle  of  Stone  River.  I  will  say  in  the  outset  that  it  would  be 
in  the  highest  degree  unjust  to  say  that  the  one  hundred  and  sixty-two 
days  which  elapsed  between  the  battle  of  Stone  River  and  the  next  ad- 
vance of  this  army  were  spent  in  idleness  or  trifling.  During  that  period 
was  performed  the  enormous  and  highly  important  labor  which  made  the 
Army  of  the  Cumberland  what  it  is,  —  in  many  respects  by  far  the  best  the 
country  has  ever  known.  But  for  many  weeks  prior  to  our  late  movement 
I  could  not  but  feel  that  there  was  not  that  Uve  and  earnest  determination 
to  fling  the  great  weight  of  this  army  into  the  scale  and  make  its  power  felt 
in  crushing  the  shell  of  the  Rebellion.  I  have  no  words  to  tell  you  with 
how  restive  and  unsatisfied  a  spirit  I  waited  and  pleaded  for  striking  a 
sturdy  blow.  I  could  not  justly  say  we  were  in  any  proper  condition  to 
advance  till  the  early  days  of  May.  At  that  time  the  strings  began  to  draw 
sharply  upon  the  Rebels,  both  on  the  Mississippi  and  in  the  East.  They 
began  to  fear  for  the  safety  of  Vicksburg,  and  before  the  middle  of  May 
they  began  quietly  to  draw  away  forces  to  aid  Pemberton.  I  pleaded  for 
an  advance,  but  not  till  June  began  did  General  Rosecrans  begin  seri- 
ously to  meditate  an  immediate  movement.  The  army  had  grown  anx- 
ious, with  the  exception  of  its  leading  generals,  who  seemed  blind  to  the 
advantages  of  the  hour.  In  the  first  week  of  the  month  a  council  of  war 
was  called,  and  out  of  eighteen  generals  whose  opinion  was  asked,  seven- 
teen were  opposed  to  an  advance.  I  was  the  only  one  who  urged  upon 
the  General  the  imperative  necessity  of  striking  a  blow  at  once,  while 
Bragg  was  weaker  and  we  stronger  than  ever  before.  I  wrote  a  carefiil 
review  of  the  opinions  of  the  generals,  and  exhibited  the  facts,  gathered 
from  ample  data,  that  we  could  throw  65,000  bayonets  and  sabres  against 
Bragg*s  41,000,  allowing  the  most  liberal  estimates  of  his  force.  This 
paper  was  drawn  up  on  the  8th  [12th]  of  June.  After  its  presentation, 
and  a  full  canvassing  of  the  situation,  an  advance  was  agreed  upon,  but  it 
was  delayed  through  days  which  seemed  months  to  me  till  the  24th, 
when  it  was  begun,  and  ended  with  what  results  you  know.  The  wisdom 
of  the  movement  was  not  only  vindicated,  but  the  seventeen  dissenting 
generals  were  compelled  to  confess  that  if  the  movement  had  been  made 
ten  days  earlier,  while  the  weather  was  propitious,  the  army  of  Bragg 
would,  in  all  human  probability,  no  longer  exist.  I  shall  never  cease  to 
regret  the  sad  delay  which  lost  us  so  great  an  opportunity  to  inflict  a 
mortal  blow  upon  the  centre  of  the  Rebellion. 

The  work  of  expelling  Bragg  from  Middle  Tennessee  occupied  nine 
days,  and  ended  July  3d,  leaving  his  troops  in  a  most  disheartened  and 
demoralized  condition,  while  our  army,  with  a  loss  of  less  than  one 
thousand  men,  was  in  a  few  days  fuller  of  potential  fight  than  ever  before. 
On  the  1 8th  instant  the  bridges  were  rebuilt,  and  the  cars  were  in  full 
communication  from  the  Cumberland  to  the  Tennessee. 


77A 


APPENDIX. 


I  have  since  then  urged,  with  all  the  eamestneas  I  posses,  a  rapid 
advanre,  while  Bragg's  army  was  shattered  and  under  cover,  and  before 
Johnston  and  he  could  effect  a  junction.  Thus  far  the  General  has  been 
singularly  disinclined  to  grasp  the  situation  with  a  strong  hand,  and  make 
the  advantage  his  own. 

I  write  this  with  more  sorrow  than  I  can  tell  you,  for  I  love  every  bone 
in  his  body,  and  nest  to  my  dcsito  lo  see  the  Rebeilion  blasted  is  my 
anxiety  to  see  him  blessed.  But  even  the  bteadth  of  my  love  is  not  suffi- 
cient to  cover  this  almost  fatal  dela^'.  My  personal  relations  wtLli  General 
Rosecrans  are  all  that  I  could  desire.  Officially  I  sliare  his  counseb  and 
responsibilities,  even  more  tlian  I  desire  ;  but  I  beg  you  to  know  that  this 
delay  is  against  my  judgment  and  my  every  wish. 

Pleasant  as  are  my  relations  here,  I  would  rather  command  a  battalion 
that  would  follow  and  follow,  and  strike  and  strike,  than  to  hang  back 
while  such  golden  moments  arc  passing.  But  the  General  and  myself 
believe  that  I  can  do  more  service  in  my  present  place  than  in  command 
of  a  division,  though  I  am  a^are  that  it  is  a  position  that  promises  better 
in  the  way  of  promotion  or  popular  credit.  But  if  tliis  inaction  contin- 
ues long,  I  shall  ask  to  be  relieved,  and  sent  somewhere  where  I  can  be 
part  of  a  working  army.  But  I  do  hope  that  you  will  soon  hear  that  this 
splendid  army  is  at  least  irj-ing  to  do  its  part  in  the  great  work.  If  the 
War  neparinient  lias  not  always  boen  ju^t,  it  has  certainly  been  very  in- 
dulgent to  this  army.  But  I  feel  that  the  time  has  now  come  when  it 
should  allow  no  plea  to  keep  this  army  back  (bam  the  most  vigorous 
activity. 

I  do  hope  that  no  hopes  of  peace  or  submissive  terms  on  the  part  of 
the  Rebeb  will  lead  the  government  to  delay  the  draft  and  the  vigorous 
prosecution  of  the  war.  "Timeo  Danaos  et  dona  ferentes."  Let  the 
nation  now  display  the  majesty  of  its  power,  and  the  work  will  be  s[>eedily 

I  hope  you  will  pardon  this  lengthy  letter,  but  I  wanted  you  to  know 
how  the  case  stands,  and  I  was  unwilling  to  have  you  think  me  satisfied 
with  the  delays  here. 

With  kindest  regards  I  am,  as  ever,  your  friend, 

James  A.  Garfibld, 
Hon.  S.  p.  Ckase. 


III. 

REMARKS  ON   GENERAL  ROSECRANS. 
Made  in  the  House  of  Representatives,  February  17,  iS^a    '      / 

WITH  A   HISTORY   OF  THE  ATTENDANT    PROCEEDINGS. 

On  the  2d  of  February,  1864,  the  Senate  adopted  a  Joint  Resolution  thank- 
ing Major-General  George  H.  Thomas  and  the  officers  and  men  who  fought 
under  his  command  at  the  battle  of  Chickamauga,  September  19  and  20,  1863, 
for  their  gallantry,  good  conduct,  and  soldier-like  endurance.  The  resolu- 
tion went  to  the  House  the  same  day,  where  it  was  reached  in  due  course  of 
business,  February  17,  1864.  This  is  the  official  record  of  the  day's  pro- 
ceedings, so  far  as  this  question  is  concerned  :  — 

"Joint  Resolution  (Senate  No.  11)  of  thanks  to  Major-General  George  H. 
Thomas  and  the  officers  and  men  who  fought  under  his  command  at  the  bat- 
tle of  Chickamauga,  was  the  next  business  taken  from  the  Speaker's  table 
and  read  a  first  and  second  time. 

"  Mr.  Garfield.    Is  it  in  order  to  move  an  amendment  to  that  resolution  ? 

"The  Speaker.    It  is. 

"  Mr.  Garfield.  Then  I  move  to  amend  by  inserting  the  name  of  Major- 
General  W.  S.  Rosecrans  before  that  of  General  Thomas,  so  that  it  will 
read,  *to  Major-General  W.  S.  Rosecrans  and  Major-General  George  H. 
Thomas,  and  to  the  officers  and  men  under  them.* 

"  Mr..  Wilson.  I  believe  that  this  House  has  already  passed  a  joint 
resolution  of  thanks  to  General  Rosecrans. 

**  Mr.  Garfield.     The  gentleman  is  mistaken. 

**  Mr.  Stevens.  We  had  better  wait  and  have  a  separate  resolution  for 
General  Rosecrans. 

"  Mr.  Farnsworth.  So  I  think.  I  believe  that  these  resolutions  ought 
to  stand  each  by  itself.  This  is  a  special  resolution  of  thanks  to  the  officers 
and  men  who  fought  the  battle  of  Chickamauga,  and  I  am  not  prepared,  with 
the  information  I  have  in  regard  to  that  battle,  to  vote  for  or  against  a  reso- 
lution of  thanks  to  Major-General  Rosecrans.  At  all  events,  it  seems  to  me 
that  each  resolution  should  be  acted  on  separately." 

Mr.  Garfield  now  took  the  floor,  and  made  the  following  remarks.  The 
further  history  of  the  resolution  should,  however,  be  given. 

Mr.  Fenton.  I  move  that  the  Joint  Resolution  be  referred  to  the  Com- 
mittee on  Military  Affairs ;  and  upon  that  motion  I  demand  the  previous 
question.  • 

The  previous  question  was  seconded,  and  the  main  question  ordered,  and 
under  the  operation  thereof  the  motion  to  refer  was  agreed  to. 

March  9th,  Mr.  Garfield,  from  the  Committee  on  Military  Affairs,  re- 
ported back  Senate  Joint  Resolution  No.  11,  giving  the  thanks  of  Congress 


77(5  APPENDIX. 

to  Major-General  George  H.  Thomas,  and  the  officers  and  men  who  foughl 
under  his  command  at  the  batlle  of  ChJckamauga.  with  an  amend  men  I,  and 
Willi  Ihc  recommendation  that  as  amended  the  resolution  do  pass. 

The  amendment  inserts  Iwfore  the  name  of  Major-General  Thomas  the 
name  of  MAJor-General  William  S.  Rosecrans,  and  includes  also  the  officers 
and  men  who  fouglit  under  his  comtnand  in  the  same  battle,  on  tlie  i9tb  and 
2oth  of  September,  1863. 

The  amendment  was  agreed  to. 

The  Joint  Resolution,  as  amended,  was  ordered  to  a  third  readiag,  and 
was  accordingly  n;ad  the  third  lime,  and  passed. 

Mr.  Garfield  moved  to  amend  the  title,  so  as  to  make  it  read  as  fullows  : 
"Joint  Resolution  of  thanks  to  Major-General  William  S.  Rosecrans  and 
Major-General  George  H.  Thomas,  and  the  otBcers  and  men  who  fought 
under  their  commands  at  the  battle  of  Chickamauga." 

The  amendment  and  title  was  agreed  to.  The  resolution  as  now  amend- 
ed went  back  10  the  Senate. 

March  lolh,  the  Senate  proceeded  to  consider  the  House  amendments.  It 
was  ordered  that  tlie  amendments  be  referred  to  the  Committee  on  Militwjr 
Affairs  and  the  Militia.  The  resolution  here  slept  the  sleep  of  death  ;  at 
least  the  Index  to  the  Globe  gives  no  further  trace  of  it,  and  It  undoubtedly 
feU. 


Mr.  Speaker,  —  I  regret  that  this  resolution  has  come  before  the 
House  of  Representatives  as  it  is  now  presented.  I  had  hoped  I  should 
not  be  compelled  to  refer  publicly  to  the  matters  involved  in  it,  and 
before  1  speak  to  the  merits  of  the  resolution  itself  I  must  be  indulged  in 
the  expression  of  my  opinion  in  regard  to  the  custom  which  is  growing 
up  in  this  body  in  reference  to  this  class  of  resolutions.  The  practice  of 
this  House,  during  the  brief  period  in  which  I  have  been  a  member,  has 
led  me  to  fear  that  the  thanks  of  the  Congress  of  the  United  Slates  are 
becoming  too  cheap  an  article  in  the  eulogistic  literature  of  the  world. 
Time  was  when  a  man  must  stand  grandly  pre-eminent  in  the  estimation 
and  affection  of  the  American  people  to  receive  in  the  solemn  forms  of 
law  the  thanks  of  the  nation,  through  its  representatives  in  Congress 
assembled.  To  merit  that  was  worth  a  lifetime  of  sacrifice  and  heroism. 
We  have  changed  this  worthy  custom.  Since  this  session  began,  many 
resolutions  of  thanks  have  been  passed  without  being  referred  to  the 
appropriate  committees,  without  remarks,  and  almost  without  notice. 
They  have  been  passed  tacitly  by  a  kind  of  common  consent.  We  have 
not  only  thanked  officers  who  were  chiefs  of  armies,  but  also  those  who 
held  subordinate  positions  in  the  various  armies  of  the  republic.  No 
question  has  been  a.sked  whether  the  ofllicer  was  entitled  to  this  distinc- 
tion, or  whether,  by  thanking  one,  another  was  not  robbed  of  his  merited 
honor.  I  repeat  that  I  have  seen  these  things  with  a  feeling  that  we  are 
cheapening  the  thanks  of  Congress  by  distributing  them  without  discrim- 
ination and  without  question.    I  have  been  so  willing  to  thank  any  tnaD 


APPENDIX.  777 

who  has  served  the  country  in  this  war  that  I  have  not  felt  disposed  to 
interpose  objection. 

In  many  of  the  instances  referred  to  I  have  had  no  knowledge  of  the 
merits  of  the  case.  But  when  it  comes  so  close  to  my  own  experience 
and  knowledge  of  the  history  of  the  war,  I  cannot  permit  a  resolution  of 
this  kind  to  pass  without  my  protest  against  this  hasty  and  thoughtless  style 
of  legislation.  I  have  been  surprised  that  the  honorable  members  of  this 
House  should  treat  so  lightly  the  matters  involved  in  thanking  the  public 
servants  of  the  nation.  I  now  appeal  to  your  sense  of  justice  whether  it 
be  right  to  single  out  a  subordinate  officer,  give  him  the  thanks  of  Con- 
gess,  and  pass  his  chief  in  silence.  On  what  grounds  are  you  now  ready 
to  ignore  the  man  who  has  won  so  many  of  the  proudest  victories  ?  I  do 
not  believe  that  such  is  the  purpose  or  wish  of  this  House. 

This  resolution  proposes  to  thank  Major-General  Thomas  and  the 
officers  and  men  under  his  command  for  gallant  services  in  the  battle 
of  Chickamauga.  It  meets  my  hearty  approval  for  what  it  contains,  but 
my  protest  for  what  it  does  not  contain.  I  should  be  recreant  to  my 
own  sense  of  justice  did  I  allow  this  omission  to  pass  without  notice. 
No  man  here  is  ready  to  say  —  and  if  there  be  such  a  man  I  am  ready 
to  meet  him  —  that  the  thanks  of  this  Congress  are  not  due  to  Major- 
General  W.  S.  Rosecrans  for  the  campaign  which  culminated  in  the  bat- 
tle of  Chickamauga.  It  is  not  uncommon  throughout  the  press  of  the 
country,  and  among  many  people,  to  speak  of  that  battle  as  a  disaster  to 
the  army  of  the  United  States,  and  to  treat  of  it  as  a  defeat.  If  that 
batde  was  a  defeat,  we  may  welcome  a  hundred  such  defeats.  I  should 
be  glad  if  each  of  our  armies  would  repeat  Chickamauga.  Twenty  such 
would  destroy  the  Rebel  army  and  the  Confederacy  utterly  and  forever. 

What  was  that  battle,  terminating  as  it  did  a  great  campaign  whose 
object  was  to  drive  the  Rebel  army  beyond  the  Tennessee,  and  to  obtain 
a  foothold  on  the  south  bank  of  that  river  which  should  form  the  basis 
of  future  operations  in  the  Gulf  States  ?  We  had  never  yet  crossed  that 
river,  except  far  below,  in  the  neighborhood  of  Corinth.  Chattanooga 
was  the  gateway  of  the  Cumberland  Mountains,  and  until  we  crossed 
the  river  and  held  the  gateway  we  could  not  commence  operations  in 
Georgia.  The  army  was  ordered  to  cross  the  river,  to  grasp  and  hold 
the  key  of  the  Cumberland  Mountains.  It  did  cross,  in  the  face  of 
superior  numbers ;  and  after  two  days  of  fighting,  more  terrible,  I  be- 
lieve, than  any  since  this  war  began,  the  Army  of  the  Cumberland  hurled 
back,  discomfited  and  repulsed,  the  combined  power  of  three  Rebel 
armies,  gained  the  key  to  the  Cumberland  Mountains,  gained  Chatta- 
nooga, and  held  it  against  every  assault.  If  there  has  been  a  more 
substantial  success  against  overwhelming  odds  since  this  war  began,  I 
have  not  heard  of  it. 

We  have  had  victories  —  God  be  thanked  !  —  all  along  the  line ;  but 


m 

y^  AT  this  war  I  know  of  no  such  battle  against  such  numbers, 
i^4Pfioa  against  an  army  of  not  le!>s  by  a  man  than  75,00a.  After  the 
1  right  wing  on  the  bloody  afternoon  of  September  aoth. 
I  of  the  Army  of  the  Cuml>erland  stood  and  met  75.000 
t  them ;  and  they  stood  in  their  bloody  tracks  immovable 
when  night  threw  its  mantle  aiound  them.  They  had 
aapcffled  the  ha.  xn'umk  of  the  Rebel  army.  Who  commanded  tlie  .\rmy 
of  dw  CvtnbarhnU?  Who  otgani/ed,  disciplined,  and  led  it?  Who 
I  cmipaigns?  The  general  whose  name  is  omitted  in  this 
molutioo,— Mi^or^Genail  W.  S.  SoKcnna. 
'  AadirinkthiaGenenlSoKcnaii?  The  Urtorjr  of  the  coanttj  t^ 
700,  aod  jrnir  cfaiUKD  kwxr  k  bf  heat.  It  ii  he  irin  fbn^'  faattlei 
and  won  vktcriea  k  Western  Vhgiiiia  nader  die  ahadow  of  aootbcr^ 
name.  When  ^k  poetic  pretender  daimed  ibe  booor  and  received  the 
reward  aa  d>e  anthor  of  Virgfl's  itanaK  in  pnbe  of  Cnar,  the  great 
Mantnan  wrote  cm  the  walk  (tf  Ae  inqieriai  pdice,  "  Hoa  ego  veni- 
colm  fed,  bdit  alKr  hoDHea."  So  mifl^  Ae  hero  of  Rich  M*Mnii:|jfii 
Mf,  "  I  von  diit  batde,  but  anoAer  has  worn  the  lanrek." 

FRnt  Western  ^niginia  be  went  (o  Miasiaippi,  and  thoe  woa  die 
faattles  of  loka  and  Oninth,  iriiieh  hare  aided  malerialhr  to  exalt  the 
fame  of  that  general  upon  whcnn  dm  Home  haa  been  in  indi  tucte  to 
CTnier  the  proad  rank  of  LJeutenant-General  of  the  Army  of  the  United 
States,  but  who  was  not  upon  either  of  those  battle-fields. 

Who  took  command  of  the  Army  of  the  Cumberland,  found  that  army 
at  Bowling  Green,  in  November,  i86z,  as  it  lay  disorganized,  disheart- 
ened, driven  back  from  Alabama  and  Tennessee,  and  led  it  to  the  Cum- 
berland, planted  it  in  Nashville,  and  thence,  on  the  first  day  of  the  new 
year,  planted  his  banners  at  Murfreesborough  "  in  torrents  of  blood," 
and,  in  the  moment  of  our  extremest  peril,  throwing  himself  into  the 
breach,  saved  by  his  personal  valor  the  Army  of  the  Cumberland  and 
the  hopes  of  the  republic?  It  was  General  Rosecrans.  From  the  day 
he  assumed  the  command  at  Bowling  Green  the  history  of  that  army 
may  be  written  in  one  sentence,  —  h  advanced  and  maintained  its  ad- 
vanced position,  and  its  last  campaign  under  the  general  it  loved  was 
the  bloodiest  and  most  brilliant.  Tlie  fruits  of  Chickamauga  were  gath- . 
ered  in  November  on  the  heights  of  Mission  Ridge  and  among  the 
clouds  of  Lookout  Mountain.  That  battle  at  Chickamauga  was  a  glori- 
ous one,-  and  every  loyal  heart  responded  to  it.  But,  sir,  it  was  won 
when  we  had  nearly  three  times  the  number  of  the  enemy.  It  ought 
to  have  been  won.  Thank  God  that  it  was  won.  I  would  take  no  lau- 
rel from  the  brow  of  the  man  who  won  it,  but  I  would  remind  gentlemen 
here,  that,  while  the  batde  of  Chattanooga  was  fought  with  vastly  superior 
numbers  on  our  part,  the  battle  of  Chickamauga  was  fought  with  still 
vaster  superiority  against  us. 


APPENDIX.  779 

If  there  is  any  maa  upon  earth  whom  I  honor,  it  is  the  man  who  is 
named  in  this  resolution,  General  George  H.  Thomas.  I  had  occasion 
in  my  remarks  on  the  Conscription  Bill,  a  few  days  ago,  to  refer  to  him 
in  such  terms  as  I  delighted  to  use ;  and  I  say  to  gentiemen  here,  that, 
if  there  is  any  man  whose  heart  would  be  hurt  by  the  passage  of  this 
resolution  as  it  now  stands,  that  man  is  General  George  H.  Thomas. 
I  know,  and  all  know,  that  he  deserves  well  of  his  country,  and  his  name 
ought  to  be  recorded  in  letters  of  gold ;  but  I  know  equally  well  that 
General  Rosecrans  deserves  well  of  his  country.  I  ask  you,  then,  not 
to  pain  the  heart  of  a  noble  man,  who  will  be  burdened  with  the  weight 
of  these  thanks  that  wrong  his  brother  officer  and  his  superior  in  com- 
mand. All  I  ask  is  that  you  will  put  both  names  into  the  resolution  and 
let  them  stand  side  by  side. 


END  OF  VOL.  I. 


University  Press :  John  Wilson  &  Son,  Cambridge. 


\